On 9/24/19 2:28 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>
>> Looks okay to me.
>
> Thanks. Does the "intentionally ignoring POSIX" part apply to rmdir also? I
> didn't find it easy to decipher POSIX.
>
> Even for mkdir, POSIX says, "If path names a symbolic link, mkdir() shall
> fail
> and set errno to [EEXI
On 9/24/2019 2:27 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 9/24/19 12:55 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> If the last component of the directory name is a symlink followed by a
>> slash, rmdir should fail, even if the symlink resolves to an existing
>> empty directory.
>>
>> mkdir was similarly fixed in 2009 in commit
>>
On 9/24/19 12:55 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> If the last component of the directory name is a symlink followed by a
> slash, rmdir should fail, even if the symlink resolves to an existing
> empty directory.
>
> mkdir was similarly fixed in 2009 in commit
> 52dba6a5c45e8d8ba1e237a15213311dc11d91fb. Mod
If the last component of the directory name is a symlink followed by a
slash, rmdir should fail, even if the symlink resolves to an existing
empty directory.
mkdir was similarly fixed in 2009 in commit
52dba6a5c45e8d8ba1e237a15213311dc11d91fb. Modify a comment to clarify
the purpose of that commi
On 9/22/2019 1:18 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
[...]
> @@ -354,6 +353,25 @@ rmdir (const char *dir)
>
> __try
> {
> + if (!*dir)
> + {
> + set_errno (ENOENT);
> + __leave;
> + }
> +
> + /* Following Linux, do not resolve the last component of DIR if
> + it is
