Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Bug in mkdir(2) |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Douglas Weimer wrote:
> Following symlinks can be useful at times. It is the root-owned > processes responsibility to check for symlinks in /tmp. This argument > can be used for any file manipulation in a globally writable directory. > Both mkdir("foo") and mkdir("foo/") should follow symlinks for > consistency purposes.
The latter - yes, the former - hell, NO. That would be incompatible with the helluva lot of systems, Linux 2.0 and 2.2 included. If adding a traing slash enforces symlink expansion - so be it, but making mkdir() always follow links... No, thanks. Besides, if you are thinking about lstat() - think of associated races.
- 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/
| |