Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!tmb
From: tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Re: inode number -> pathname? (4.2BSD)
Message-ID: <468@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 23:35:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: talcott.468
Posted: Thu Jul 11 23:35:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:09:23 EDT
References: <11465@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Harvard University
Lines: 18

> I disagree!  If it were possible to set the current working directory
> to a given inode and device, then pwd would give you the answer.  All
> the permission information, and even the bit denoting whether or not
> this inode refers to a directory is stored in the inode, and can easily
> be checked in such a call.  Putting such a call in would be easy.  Just
> do what "chdir" (well, actually "chdirec" in 4.2) does after it calls
> "nami".  Why is this hard?
> 
> 			William LeFebvre

That's probably not a good idea. Many people/programs rely on the fact
that files within or below an inaccessible directory are inaccessible
regardless of their modes. Although there is in principle nothing wrong
with the idea of introducing a set of system calls that work by inode
rather than by name, it is incompatible with current habits and uses
of the file system.

						Thomas.