On Wed 2013-05-15 23:03:35, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 01:38:48PM +0100, P??draig Brady wrote:
> > >> In today's Austin Group meeting, I was tasked to open a new bug that
> > >> would state specifically how the empty symlink is resolved; the intent
> > >> is to allow both Solaris behavior (current directory) and BSD behavior
> > >> (ENOENT). Meanwhile, everyone was in agreement that the Linux kernel
> > >> has a bug for rejecting the creation of an empty symlink, but once that
> > >> bug is fixed, then Linux can choose either Solaris or BSD behavior for
> > >> how to resolve such a symlink.
>
> Austin Group Is At It Again, Demands at 11...
>
> Would you mind explaining who's "everyone" and why would we possibly
> want to honour that agreement of yours? Functionality in question is
> utterly pointless, seeing that semantics of such symlinks is OS-dependent
> anyway *and* that blanket refusal to traverse such beasts is a legitimate
> option. What's the point in allowing to create them in the first
> place?
BSD may have created them. Or evil sysadmin (me) might have created
them with hex editor.
AFAICT we seem to have the Solaris behavior (current directory):
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo$ ls -al link2/
total 3
drwxr-xr-x 2 pavel pavel 1024 May 26 11:34 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 pavel pavel 1024 May 26 11:29 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 file1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 link1 -> file1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 21 May 26 11:34 link2 ->
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 this_will_be_null_link ->
file1
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo$ cd link2/
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo/link2$ ls -al
total 3
drwxr-xr-x 2 pavel pavel 1024 May 26 11:34 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 pavel pavel 1024 May 26 11:29 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 file1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 link1 -> file1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 21 May 26 11:34 link2 ->
lrwxrwxrwx 1 pavel pavel 5 May 26 11:29 this_will_be_null_link ->
file1
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo/link2$ cd link2/
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo/link2/link2$ ls
file1 link1 link2 this_will_be_null_link
pavel@amd:/mnt/foo/link2/link2$ cd ..
They are _not_ detected as broken during runtime (ext2 fs is not marked as
containing errors) but fsck seems to handle them correctly.
pavel@amd:~/misc$ /sbin/fsck.ext2 -f delme2.fs
e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Symlink /foo/link2 (inode #7717) is invalid.
Clear<y>? yes
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
delme2.fs: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
delme2.fs: 15/25064 files (0.0% non-contiguous), 4724/100000 blocks
pavel@amd:~/misc$
I was looking for nice kernel crash but alas, nothing :-).
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
