Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Symlink indirection | From | James Antill <> | Date | 13 Dec 2002 12:32:50 -0500 |
| |
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com> 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 -- james@and.org :0: * ^From: .*james@and\.org /dev/null - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |