[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?

    On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Roland McGrath wrote:

    > There has always been an explicit check in BSD for following more than
    > MAXSYMLINKS links. It is not expressing an implementation limit. The
    > limit is there to catch infinite recursions (ln -s foo foo).
    > This is what the ELOOP error exists to report.

    Yes, indeed. I wrote that:
    a) We have similar (see below) limit (5).
    b) It is enforced in a single place.
    c) It's low due to our implementation of namei() (recursive vs.

    My fault, I didn't check the actual code before posting. Yes, 4.4 counts
    total amount of symlinks (kern/vfs_lookup.c::namei()), but IMHO it is not
    clear that we should do the same. Counting nested symlinks is enough for
    loop detection. Anyway, if we want to enforce such limit we can do it in
    do_follow_link() and lookup_dentry().

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.032 / U:2.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site