On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 04:35:19PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
It has to do with the fact that historically mkdir(2) was
actually mkdir(3), it wasn't an atomic syscall and was a sequence
of operation performed by a library routine...
Actually I think you'll find that mkdir way always a
da...@l8s.co.uk (David Laight) writes:
Actually I think you'll find that mkdir way always a system call.
It was directory rename that was done with a series of link and
unlink system calls.
mkdir(1) did a sequence of mknod,chown,link,link if you believe
the public sys3 sources. According to
In article 20131105220754.gb...@snowdrop.l8s.co.uk,
David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 04:35:19PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
It has to do with the fact that historically mkdir(2) was
actually mkdir(3), it wasn't an atomic syscall and was a sequence
of operation
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
I think not sensible is not a good enough reason to prohibit
something.
Yeah yeah, but still nowadays we don't allow adding hard links to
directories. So while that's a valid premise, it's not universal.
FWIW, the idea not allowing hard links to
On 2013-11-03, at 11:47, Hubert Feyrer hub...@feyrer.de wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
I think not sensible is not a good enough reason to prohibit
something.
Yeah yeah, but still nowadays we don't allow adding hard links to
directories. So while that's a valid premise,
On Nov 3, 2:57pm, Sverre Froyen wrote:
} On 2013-11-03, at 11:47, Hubert Feyrer hub...@feyrer.de wrote:
} On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
} I think not sensible is not a good enough reason to prohibit
} something.
}
} Yeah yeah, but still nowadays we don't allow adding hard links
On Unix System V, the link command would allow hard-linking
directories when used as root.
Also, recently enough that at least some versions of NetBSD do it,
unlink(2) performed by root on the last non-. link to a directory would
silently orphan the directory, requiring fsck to fix.
I've long
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 07:48:54PM -0500, Mouse wrote:
On Unix System V, the link command would allow hard-linking
directories when used as root.
Also, recently enough that at least some versions of NetBSD do it,
unlink(2) performed by root on the last non-. link to a directory would
On 2013-11-03 22:57, Sverre Froyen wrote:
On 2013-11-03, at 11:47, Hubert Feyrer hub...@feyrer.de wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
I think not sensible is not a good enough reason to prohibit
something.
Yeah yeah, but still nowadays we don't allow adding hard links to
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length
symlinks. As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this
should probably be prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they
shouldn't be?
Symlink names should satisfy all the rules for file
Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
If it ain't broken don't fix it?
Hubert
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:17:50PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
I think not sensible is not a good enough reason to prohibit
something.
Yeah yeah, but still nowadays we
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
(rmind wants me to post this message for some reason)
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org writes:
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
What does POSIX say?
I note that one can't creaet
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
Prohibiting them seems reasonable to me - I cannot imagine
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
Does this mean symlinks with zero-length names or symlinks with
zero-length link-to strings?
If you mean the former, then I agree, but the object's being a symlink
has nothing to do with it.
The rest of this email assumes you
http://lwn.net/Articles/551224/
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=649
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 04:47:35PM +, David Holland wrote:
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Goyette p...@whooppee.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, David Holland wrote:
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:47:35 +
From: David Holland dholland-t...@netbsd.org
rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks.
As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be
prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be?
Some
19 matches
Mail list logo
