On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 06:47:31PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> AF_UNIX sockets or any other operation that creates objects. Compare also
> with behaviour of unlink(), rmdir() and rename().
>
> > utime( ). Interfaces that historically do not follow symbolic links
> > include chown( ), lstat( ), readlink( ), rename( ), remove( ), rmdir(),
> > and unlink( ). IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x deviates from historical
> > practice only in the case of chown( ).
>
> Lovely. IOW, draft sucks badly for mkdir() too - AFAICS with security
> consequences. And makes 4.4BSD, Solaris and Linux non-compliant in
> bargain. mkdir() on a dangling symlinks does not follow links on any of
> these systems. Let's see... Yep, mknod() also doesn't follow them. Care
> to reconsider the piece above? Or should this "include" be read as
> "include, but are not limited to"?
>
> Please, fix the draft.
Why don't you get the text yourself and read it, before shouting wildly?
Concerning mkdir() I can reassure you. Quoting from the mkdir() section:
"If path names a symbolic link, mkdir() shall fail and set errno to EEXIST".
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST