It's a strange question anyway - You want a single file to have
permissions
(suppose 755) in one directory, and some different permissions
(suppost 700)
in some other directory? Then some users could access the file if
they use
path A, but would be denied access to the same file if they
My point exactly. I'm being bold or brazen or ignorant by saying: There is
no point to do a chmod and not follow symlink. Chmod should always follow
symlinks. That's why it's the default behavior, and that's why it's rare,
strange, or impossible to override that behavior.
As long as you're
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Edward Ned Harveysola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
It's a strange question anyway - You want a single file to have
permissions
(suppose 755) in one directory, and some different permissions
(suppost 700)
in some other directory? Then some users could access the
On Aug 24, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Edward Ned Harveysola...@nedharvey.com
wrote:
It's a strange question anyway - You want a single file to have
permissions
(suppose 755) in one directory, and some different permissions
(suppost 700)
in some
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:55, Richard Ellingrichard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Alice$ cd ~/proj1; ln -s /etc .,
Alice$ echo Hi helpdesk, Bob is on vacation and he has a bunch of
files in my home directory for a project that we are working on
together. Unfortunately, his umask was messed up and
On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Will Murnane wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:55, Richard
Ellingrichard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Alice$ cd ~/proj1; ln -s /etc .,
Alice$ echo Hi helpdesk, Bob is on vacation and he has a bunch of
files in my home directory for a project that we are working on
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Richard Ellingrichard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
...
No it shouldn't.
Alice$ cd ~/proj1; ln -s /etc .,
Alice$ echo Hi helpdesk, Bob is on vacation and he has a bunch of
files in my home directory for a project that we are working on
together. Unfortunately,
Will Murnane will.murn...@gmail.com wrote:
Helpdesk$ pfexec chmod -fR a+rw /home/alice/proj1
Alice$ rm /etc/shadow
Alice$ cp myshadow /etc
Alice$ su -
root#
One could achieve the same result with a request to chmod a+rw
/etc/shadow, but this would be more noticeable.
One of my
Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Helpdesk$ pfexec chmod -fR a+rw /home/alice/proj1
Alice$ rm /etc/shadow
Alice$ cp myshadow /etc
Alice$ su -
root#
One could achieve the same result with a request to chmod a+rw
/etc/shadow, but this would be more noticeable.
One
Hello!
How can I prevent /usr/bin/chmod from following symbolic links? I can't find
any
-P option in the documentation (and it doesn't work either..).
Maybe find can be used in some way?
Not possible; in Solaris we don't have a lchmod(2) system call which makes
adding a chmod option (like
How can I prevent /usr/bin/chmod from following symbolic links? I
can't find any
-P option in the documentation (and it doesn't work either..).
Maybe find can be used in some way?
Not possible; in Solaris we don't have a lchmod(2) system call which
makes
adding a chmod option (like
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It makes no sense to attempt setting perms on a symlink. The perms are
determined by the actual file. The symlink is just another name for the
file itself. If you want to change perms of the file, change the perms of
the file.
Actually it does
Hello!
How can I prevent /usr/bin/chmod from following symbolic links? I can't find
any -P option in the documentation (and it doesn't work either..). Maybe find
can be used in some way?
Background:
When I'm running chmod on my backup folder structure containing a copy of a
Linux root
13 matches
Mail list logo
