Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:42:35 -0500 (EST) | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: EXT2_UNRM_FL |
| |
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:21:48 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
Sorry, I've misparsed it ;-< What I was thinking of is NO_UNLINK stuff - behaves as APPEND_ONLY and IMMUTABLE wrt link creation/removing and gives no protection to the contents of file. It is useful in many situations and it *is* easy to implement. But yes, UNRM is different... Actually I'ld propose to take one more bit of attributes for that. UFS has such thing (ignored in Linux) and VFS support for that would be very easy to add (I already did VFS part and changes to UFS driver). Could you comment on that? All I need on ext2 side is a spare bit in ext2_i.i_flags (user-visible).
I guess I'm little confused about how NO_UNLINK would be useful. Does it protect against file renames as well as unlinks? What about truncates? If it doesn't protect the data, what are the applications where it's useful?
- Ted
- 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/
| |