A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                eblake
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Issue 8 drafts
Issue ID:                   1798
Category:                   System Interfaces
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Objection
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     Resolution Proposed
Name:                       Eric Blake 
Organization:               Red Hat 
User Reference:             ebb.posix_getdents 
Section:                    XSH posix_getdents 
Page Number:                1567 
Line Number:                52609 
Final Accepted Text:        https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798#c6721 
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2024-01-22 15:13 UTC
Last Modified:              2024-03-22 09:48 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Must posix_getdents remember file offsets across
exec?
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006724) geoffclare (manager) - 2024-03-22 09:48
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798#c6724 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> If I set up a directory using
> 
>      mkdir dir
>      cd dir
>      > file1
>      ln file1 file2
>
> and after that is all done, I run an application (maybe ls) which
> uses readdir() to read the directory (with nothing changing in any
> way), I assume (hope) that is intended, and required, that readdir()
> returns entries for both file1 and file2. If that's not required,
> then you can stop reading this note now, and we have bigger problems.

Obviously, returning entries for both is _intended_ to be required, but you
have uncovered a major problem with the proposed wording, and as it stands
implementations would be required to return either file1 or file2 but not
both. This is because the text uses "file" when it means "directory entry".
In your example, file1 and file2 are separate directory entries which both
refer to the same file.

If we reword in terms of directory entries, I think no explicit statement
about renaming will be needed. If the rename removes one directory entry
and adds another, it will be covered by the add/remove text; if it updates
the name within the directory entry, the existing requirement for directory
operations to be atomic will be sufficient.

> I also notice that posix_getdents() says nothing about the effects of
> a rename() - and perhaps should. However, were the language changed
> to refer to file names being added to or removed from the directory,
> rather than files being added or removed, then what is there now would
> cover it I think.

In the relevant paragraph (lines 52624-52629 in draft 4) the first sentence
uses "directory entry" and the second uses "file".  The second should
change to use "directory entry". 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         New Issue                                    
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         Name                      => Eric Blake      
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         Organization              => Red Hat         
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         User Reference            => ebb.posix_getdents
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         Section                   => XSH posix_getdents
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         Page Number               => 1567            
2024-01-22 15:13 eblake         Line Number               => 52609           
2024-01-22 15:30 eblake         Note Added: 0006632                          
2024-01-22 15:39 eblake         Note Edited: 0006632                         
2024-02-16 10:18 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006658                          
2024-02-29 17:27 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006695                          
2024-02-29 17:29 geoffclare     Final Accepted Text       =>
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798#c6695    
2024-02-29 17:29 geoffclare     Status                   New => Resolution
Proposed
2024-02-29 17:29 geoffclare     Resolution               Open => Accepted As
Marked
2024-02-29 17:30 geoffclare     Tag Attached: tc1-2024                       
2024-03-04 09:38 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006703                          
2024-03-07 12:28 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006708                          
2024-03-07 15:00 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006709                          
2024-03-07 18:14 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006710                          
2024-03-07 20:24 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006711                          
2024-03-07 20:30 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006712                          
2024-03-08 09:00 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006715                          
2024-03-08 11:08 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006716                          
2024-03-21 16:21 eblake         Note Added: 0006721                          
2024-03-21 16:21 eblake         Resolution               Accepted As Marked =>
Reopened
2024-03-21 16:24 eblake         Note Edited: 0006721                         
2024-03-21 16:30 eblake         Note Edited: 0006721                         
2024-03-21 16:31 eblake         Final Accepted Text     
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798#c6695 =>
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1798#c6721
2024-03-21 18:58 corinna_vinschenNote Added: 0006722                          
2024-03-22 03:50 kre            Note Added: 0006723                          
2024-03-22 04:40 kre            Note Edited: 0006723                         
2024-03-22 04:48 kre            Note Edited: 0006723                         
2024-03-22 09:48 geoffclare     Note Added: 0006724                          
======================================================================


    • Re: [Is... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [Is... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [Is... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [Issue 8 dra... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to