[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FS: hardlinks on directories
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:58:19 -0400
Andrew Pimlott <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > There is a flaw in this argument. If I am told that mount --bind
> > does just about what I want to have as a feature then these
> > applictions must have the same problems already (if I mount
> > braindead). So an implementation in fs cannot do any _additional_
> > damage to these applications, or not?
> There is a flaw in this flaw. :-)
> /tmp# mkdir a
> /tmp# mkdir a/b
> /tmp# mkdir a/c
> /tmp# mount --bind a a/b
> /tmp# ls a
> b c
> /tmp# ls a/b
> b c
> /tmp# ls a/b/b/
> /tmp#
> It is enlightening in this regard to consider the difference between
> using unix /etc/fstab and Hurd translators to manage your namespace.
> In preparing this example, I discovered that find and ls -R already
> have hard-link cycle "protection" built in, so they are broken in
> the presence of bind mounts. :-(

Ok, so now we are at: application programmer expected hardlinks to exist, but
fs programmer says they won't because they break existing applications.
Now the discussion gets real interesting ;-)


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 13:47    [W:0.146 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site