Re: EXT2_UNRM_FL

Theodore Y. Ts'o (tytso@MIT.EDU)
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:42:35 -0500 (EST)


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/