On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:45:45 +0200 Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
> Let me try to first avoid to discuss things that are arguable... > > > Don should know that there is no POSIX violation. He did not prove his > > > claim > > > with a pointer to the POSIX standard, judge yourself whom to believe..... > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/tar.html > > > > It says nothing about (mis)interpreting an absolute path name as a > > relative one, or about switching that behavior on or off. > Correct, it does not forbid the behavor that has been chosen to make tar more > safe. apologies for posting to a closed case but I can't let this one go an application does not have carte blanche to do operation X simply because the standard does not forbid operation X e.g., "it didn't say I couldn't kill(-1,9)" there are other complications suppose the archive contains the symbolic link /somedir/foo -> /dev/null does the default "tar will be safe" mode interpret this as ./somedir/foo -> ./dev/null or ./somedir/foo -> /dev/null I don't even need an answer for this the choice taken will be wrong for at least 2/3 of the users (considering the unmangled /somedir/foo -> /dev/null case too) -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
