Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Dec 1999 22:33:10 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Can't hardlink in different dirs. (BUG#826) |
| |
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
>... and F- on UNIX SA 101 - if you don't know the reasons to keep /tmp on >a separate filesystem.
Would you call this a solution? This is a very ugly workaround. The fact this works is only a side effect of the limitations of the hardlink.
So another solution is to take your data in a separated filesystem mounted in /home/alexander so nobody will be able to do hardlinks across a filesystem.
I don't buy this point, sorry. With a 500giga filesystem it make no sense to make a partition for /tmp and I _want_ to be able to create hardlinks all over the place exactly because they are useful. So the less filesystem there are, the better will be for the hardlink case.
>As for "kill his tasks" - great, is that what you do when you decide to rm >something? I like that policy, but it may be a bit of, erm, overkill.
I don't like it either, but you should see it as a very seldom thing. I just assume we need a level of security that will allow an admin to trivially catch very silly guys and that avoids to mess up the fs.
>Besides, why on the Earth do you have finite quota for _root_, in the >first place? It's an instant fsckup(tm) waiting to happen. Sheesh...
/tmp is owned by root but the quota is increased in the owner of the inode that is trashing metadata away in /tmp.
NOTE: I can as well ignore this thread as I don't need this feature for myself and if nobody needs this kind of basic security either, than this is wasted time.
Andrea
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |