Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PATCH against 2.1.72: better symlinks for a better future (was Re: security warning) | From | (Kevin Buhr) | Date | 17 Dec 1997 14:21:57 -0600 |
| |
mlord <mlord@pobox.com> writes: > > What happens when the symlink has a trailing slash in its name, > as opposed to me entering one on the command line? > > > eg. ln -s foo/ foo-symlink > instead of ln -s foo foo-symlink > > This happens a *lot*.
The first argument to a "symlink" system call is handled through a different mechanism, so both:
ln -s foo/ slash ln -s foo noslash
will work irrespective of the proposed changes. On an ext2 filesystem, they create slightly different symlinks:
total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 buhr buhr 3 Dec 17 12:58 noslash -> foo lrwxrwxrwx 1 buhr buhr 4 Dec 17 12:58 slash -> foo/
However, in practice, this doesn't make a difference. Whether "foo" is a regular file, a directory, or another symlink (dangling or not), "noslash" and "slash" appear to behave the same in all cases (except, of course, if you use an explicit "readlink" call).
Kevin <buhr@stat.wisc.edu>
| |