Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:35:28 -0700 | From | "Tim Pepper" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] symlink nesting level change |
| |
On 5/3/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2006 04:08:49 +0100 > Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > > No. It's way past time to bump it to 8. Everyone had been warned - for > > months now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > ---- > > --- a/include/linux/namei.h 2006-03-31 20:08:42.000000000 -0500 > > +++ b/include/linux/namei.h 2006-05-02 23:06:46.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ > > struct file *file; > > }; > > > > -enum { MAX_NESTED_LINKS = 5 }; > > +enum { MAX_NESTED_LINKS = 8 }; > > > > struct nameidata { > > struct dentry *dentry; > > It's a non-back-compatible change which means that people will install > 2.6.18+, will set stuff up which uses more that five nested links and some > will discover that they can no longer run their software on older kernels. > > It'll only hurt a very small number of people, but for those people, it > will hurt a lot. And I can't really think of anything we can do to help > them, apart from making the new behaviour runtime-controllable, defaulting > to "off", but add a once-off printk when we hit MAX_NESTED_LINKS, pointing > them at a document which tells them how to turn on the new behaviour and > which explains the problems. Which sucks. > > But I guess as major distros are 2.6.16-based, this is a good time to make > this change.
Doesn't look like this ended up in 2.6.18-rc nor -mm. The email thread in May was tending towards finally bumping it. Major distros already have it at 8 for a long time. Is there any reason left (aside now from possibly waiting until 2.6.19's window?) to wait?
Tim - 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/
| |