Re: How does chown(2) works with symlinks?
Orlando M. Amador (oamador@amador.org)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:59:48 -0400 (AST)
>
> In article <m0ud2oF-000h9vC@amador.org>,
> Orlando M. Amador <oamador@amador.org> wrote:
> :Which file gets changed when a call to chown(2) is done on a symlink?
> :The man page gives the impression that it would follow the symlink and
> :change the owner of the file pointed by the symlink. Still, if a used
> :chown on a symlink now, it will only change the symlink. Was there a
> :change to the way it works?
>
> I don't see anything in the manpage that suggests that. In any event,
> there is one place where the ownership of the link itself is significant
> (deleting the link from a directory which has it's sticky bit set), so
> it makes sense to have a way to change that ownership. It's 'chmod'
> that follows the link and affects the target, since the permission bits
> on the symbolic link itself are meaningless.
>
> --
> Bob Nichols rnichols@interaccess.com
>
>
The fact that chmod(2) could return an 'ELOOP' error (According to
manpages 1.8) suggest that chmod() used to follow the symlink. This
not the case anymore.
Personally I think that it should resolve the symlink. Access and
ownership should be controled by the file that the symlink points to.
Saludos,
Orlando
--
Orlando M. Amador oamador@amador.org
Avenida Country Club #1027 (787) 898-5181
Camuy, PR 00627 Fax: (787) 898-6686