Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:20:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:20:14 -0500 Received: from geos.coastside.net ([207.213.212.4]:49577 "EHLO geos.coastside.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:19:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010329013602.I10910@higherplane.net> References: <01032806093901.11349@tabby> <20010328151008.D8235@dev.sportingbet.com> <20010329013602.I10910@higherplane.net> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 08:18:10 -0800 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: Disturbing news.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1016 Lines: 23 john slee says: >On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 06:08:15AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote: >> > Sure - very simple. If the execute bit is set on a file, don't allow >> > ANY write to the file. This does modify the permission bits slightly >> > but I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to have. >> > >> >> Are we not then in the somewhat zen-like state of having an "rm" which can't >> "rm" itself without needing to be made non-executable so that it can't execute? > >aiiiieee, my head hurts now, thanks :( It shouldn't. rm is not prevented from removing an unwriteable file (though it complains by default). Directory permissions control operations on links. -- /Jonathan Lundell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/