Review Request 119372: Fix Bug 337486 - Should not permit moving of read-only folder to a different directory

[Thomas Lübking]

> On Sept. 17, 2014, 7:39 nachm., David Faure wrote:
> > Interesting, didn't know about this posix restriction (a bit inconsistent imho, the readonly dir vs readonly file difference).

The ro flag only guarantees integrity, not presence.

The absent write permission of a directory esp. protects the path of its entries, ie. you cannot "mv ro_dir/foo ro_dir/bar" or "rm ro_dir/foo" or "mv ro_dir/foo somewhere_else/foo" - so you shall not achieve that by "mv ro_dir somewhere_else" ;-)

Re/moving a readonly file however is totally ok in the posix world of logics (you're not altering the content at all, but simply remove a reference to the inode. In doubt the last one)

Fun fact: you _can_ move an *empty* ro directory =)


- Thomas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/#review66430
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Juli 22, 2014, 7:56 vorm., Arjun Ak wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Juli 22, 2014, 7:56 vorm.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Base Apps.
> 
> 
> Bugs: 337486
>     http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337486
> 
> 
> Repository: kde-baseapps
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Fixes Bug 337486
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   lib/konq/konq_operations.cpp 220a90a 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Arjun Ak
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20140917/5152ed2b/attachment.htm>