Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 02:19:38 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: FS: hardlinks on directories |
| |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:58:19 -0400 Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > There is a flaw in this argument. If I am told that mount --bind > > does just about what I want to have as a feature then these > > applictions must have the same problems already (if I mount > > braindead). So an implementation in fs cannot do any _additional_ > > damage to these applications, or not? > > There is a flaw in this flaw. :-) > > /tmp# mkdir a > /tmp# mkdir a/b > /tmp# mkdir a/c > /tmp# mount --bind a a/b > /tmp# ls a > b c > /tmp# ls a/b > b c > /tmp# ls a/b/b/ > /tmp# > > It is enlightening in this regard to consider the difference between > using unix /etc/fstab and Hurd translators to manage your namespace. > > In preparing this example, I discovered that find and ls -R already > have hard-link cycle "protection" built in, so they are broken in > the presence of bind mounts. :-(
Ok, so now we are at: application programmer expected hardlinks to exist, but fs programmer says they won't because they break existing applications. Now the discussion gets real interesting ;-)
Regards, Stephan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |