Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] Bug in mkdir(2) | Date | 17 Jun 1999 01:41:05 GMT | From | (Ton Hospel) |
| |
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9906161627580.27428-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>, Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes: > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Alexander Viro wrote: >> > >> > In other words, if foo is a dangling symlink mkdir("foo/") will merrily >> > follow it. Which it shouldn't. >> >> Why? I think the follows symlink behaviour is the right one, and is >> consistent with "open" etc. Are there any pressing reasons to not do it? > > Oh, well... Looks like it's a really borderline case - everybody seem to > be doing whatever they want here. In situations when the last component is > a link and call normally wouldn't follow it adding slashes seems to be > ignored on Solaris and forces the link expansion on Linux and 4.4BSD... > I still think that following the link is bogus, but after all, if somebody > wants to hang let's give him the rope... > In a way it's consistent. mkdir DOES follow symlinks in the part of the path before the last /, so having adding a / cause following symlinks seems acceptable.
Notice also that if you do:
mkdir q ln -s q p
lstatting p gives you info on the symlink, while lstatting p/ gives you info on the directory (if you have a non super recent ls you can also see it by comparing ls -l p and ls -l p/ ) -- You sound reasonable...Time to up my medication.
- 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/
| |