Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:25:00 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Bug in mkdir(2) |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > In other words, if foo is a dangling symlink mkdir("foo/") will merrily > > follow it. Which it shouldn't. > > Why? I think the follows symlink behaviour is the right one, and is > consistent with "open" etc. Are there any pressing reasons to not do it?
The same as for mkdir("foo")? mkdir behaves like open( ,O_CREAT|O_EXCL, ); Which doesn't follow links, by exactly the same reasons. Think of ln -sf <something_interesting_that_should_not_exist> /tmp/foo012345 when root-owned process is expected to create/mkdir/mknod/rename to /tmp/foo12345.
Just to clarify: mkdir("foo") doesn't follow the link. mkdir("foo/") does.
- 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/
| |