[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Symlink indirection
Pete Zaitcev <> writes:

> >> Is the number of allowed levels of symlink indirection (if that is the
> >> right phrase; I mean symlink -> symlink -> ... -> file) dependant on the
> >> kernel, or libc ? Where is it defined, and can it be changed?
> >
> > fs/namei.c
> >
> > if (current->link_count >= 5)
> >
> > change to a higher value.
> This is vey, very misleading statement. The counter mentioned above
> is there to protect stacks from overflow, but our symlink resolution
> is largely non-recursive, and certainly not in case of a tail
> recursion within the same directory.

tail recursion is a bad name, as that implies the last element of the
path can go beyond the above value. A better way is to say that each
element of the path can have at most link_count and the total path can
have at most total_link_count symlinks (or that nested symlinks are
limited to a small number, in Al's words).

# James Antill --
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.074 / U:4.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site