> >The last time: your change does not increase security. Sigh... Andrea,
>
> You say again for the open(2) issue? As I just said the open(2) is
> possible only due the lazyness of not having implemented revoke(2) yet.
>
> Just because fixing hardlinks is not enough it doesn't mean it's in the
> wrong direction.
revoke() is needed anyway (for /dev/vcsa, /dev/sound, /dev/fb0 for
example), so I guess
*) first implement revoke()
*) then talk about this issue again
I still think that adding feature to truncate file before deletion
into rm would make you happy, Andrea. That handles both open() and
link() cases nicely.
Pavel
PS: That new switch to rm looks really nice, think about it.
-- I'm really pavel@ucw.cz. Look at http://195.113.31.123/~pavel. Pavel Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!- 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/