On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 16:24:57 -0800
Michael Forney wrote:
Dear Michael,
> I'm only proposing removing -H, -L, and -P from chmod, not the other
> tools. The only POSIX option is -R, and the only use I can think of
> for chmod -L is if you wanted to modify the permissions of files
> outside the
On 2019-12-23, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:05:45 -0800
> Michael Forney wrote:
>
> Dear Michael,
>
>> I can think of two possibilities here:
>>
>> 1. Remove the -H, -L, and -P options from chmod, always set r.follow =
>> 'H', and call chmod(3) conditional on
On 2019-12-23 16:47:59 +0100, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> [..] Especially with the H, L and P options we found many bugs in GNU
> coreutils, and keeping them in is essential if we want to claim that
> we are more or less POSIX compliant. [..]
Sorry I do not understand how this is meant. Looking at the
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:05:45 -0800
Michael Forney wrote:
Dear Michael,
> I can think of two possibilities here:
>
> 1. Remove the -H, -L, and -P options from chmod, always set r.follow =
> 'H', and call chmod(3) conditional on !S_ISLINK(st->st_mode).
> 2. Keep the -H, -L, and -P options, but
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 07:05:45PM -0800, Michael Forney wrote:
> - Most BSD chmod(1) have -H, -L, and -P options (defaulting to -P),
> and the filesystem *does* record the mode of a symlink, but this mode
> has no affect on the kernel's access checks.
Well, most Linux FSes have the capacity to
Hi,
I'm looking into improving chmod(1) behavior with symbolic links.
First, some background:
- The mode of symbolic links is not used anywhere, and on linux,
fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, path, mode, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) on a symlink
returns EOPNOTSUPP.
- POSIX only specifies the -R option, and doesn't
