home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.3b1
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!hico2!kak
- From: kak@hico2.westmark.com (Kris A. Kugel)
- Subject: tar and chown (was: Re: Cnews and dashes)
- Message-ID: <Brszsw.2o3@hico2.westmark.com>
- Summary: this IS the original behavior.
- Organization: High Country Software
- References: <1992Jul16.235347.26899@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:38:54 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.)) writes:
- : ...but since chown(2) rights are reserved to root, the changes
- : never occur. The authors of tar probably depended on this behavior of
- : chown(2). When AT&T changed the behavior of chown(2), they didn't think of
- : the change that this might cause in the behavior of tar, and so didn't
- : modify the default value of the -o flag in tar for a non-root user. This is
- : a *MAJOR* misfeature, and should have been corrected long ago.
- : --
- : Donald Nichols (DoN.)| Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
-
- I seem to recall, (and have the manuals at home to check)
- that version 7 unix allowed chown(1) to change file ownership,
- and so I think that chown(2) for version 7 was NOT reserved for root.
- I believe that the chown action change was part of the
- the set of changes Berekley made to support accounting.
- (Why do they need this restriction? Let's say I have a diskspace
- usage limit, so I make a big file -rw-rw-rw- and then chown it
- to somebody else, who then gets billed for the space usage.
- With the chown restriction, I can't do that trick anymore.
- This probably would make e-mail more popular for transfering files
- within a system, and make projects that required you be allowed
- "root" permission more popular. )
-
- Anyhow, as far as I know, Berekley DEVELOPED the chown restriction.
-
- Kris A. Kugel 908-842-2707
- hico2!kak kak@hico2.westmark.com
-