still don't see that this would be a "new rule" or new feature.
IMHO it's a definition for a (yet) unspecified condition/operation.
I'm always asking *why* (for which reason, or maybe better which purpose)
something is done/allowed/not allowed/implemented/...
for the question "why is a user allowed to create hard like to files of other users"
I haven't found any positive answer yet (please don't tell me
"that's UNIX fs semantics" again;)
and I found/read no answer so far what we'd break if we would change
the behaviour of link(). I still think that it *absolute* no
real application will be affected...
Eric Troan wrote:
: I couldn't find a POSIX verdict in ISO 9945-1. All it says is EPERM is
: returned it the user calling link() doesn't have "appropriate privileges"
: and that "appropriate privileges" are implementation defined. That doesn't
: seem to be much help.
so at least for my understanding in this saying it would be perfect to say
that Linux doesn't allow to create hard linkes to files not owend and
thus return EPERM in this case because the user doesn't have "appropriate privileges"
(read: doesn't have ownership of the original file in this case).
Harald
-- All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____ be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\ 24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\ \ \/OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\ \ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO|// Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ koenig@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de ^^^^^ ^^^^^