In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordan Hubbard writes:
>From: Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re:]
>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
>>     Symlinks do not have to contain paths.  People use them for all sorts
>>     of things so it would be totally inappropriate to put any sort of
>True.  It would break phk's malloc debugging features to disable this,
>for example.

Not only that, but considerning that a symlink can point into a
different filesystem even in normal use, there is no simple way to
validate the valididty of the name.

Consider this symlink:

        ln -s /my_FAT16_filesystem/foo:bar /tmp/blaf

as a silly example of this.

The only two real restrictions on symlinks are that they cannot
contain NUL characters and that '/' means what '/' does in all
filesystem naming on UNIX.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to