* symlinks follow 8 or 5?
@ 2004-07-29 5:34 FabF
2004-07-30 3:14 ` Tim Connors
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: FabF @ 2004-07-29 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkml
Hi,
do_follow_link comments is "This limits recursive symlink follows to 8"
... but having (x=1->10) ln -s x+1 x and trying cat 1 just works for x <
7 which drops follow mode to 5.Is this irrelevant ?
Regards,
FabF
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
2004-07-29 5:34 symlinks follow 8 or 5? FabF
@ 2004-07-30 3:14 ` Tim Connors
2004-07-30 7:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tim Connors @ 2004-07-30 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: FabF; +Cc: lkml
FabF <fabian.frederick@skynet.be> said on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:34:39 +0200:
> Hi,
> do_follow_link comments is "This limits recursive symlink follows to 8"
> ... but having (x=1->10) ln -s x+1 x and trying cat 1 just works for x <
> 7 which drops follow mode to 5.Is this irrelevant ?
This popped up a few years ago.
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9903.1/0018.html
Obviously, nothing came about it. And I suspect the problem (running
out of stack space) is even worse these days with 4k stacks. Why is
this even done recursively?
Note that 5 symlinks is quite a burden. I got hit by it a few days ago
with my farm of symlinks between nfs RAID disks and my home directory
(~/raid points to /nfs/cluster, papers refers to ~/raid/papers,
Astro-ph refers to ~/papers/Astro-ph, and then I autofs shfs mounted
~/ from another host, which involve a couple of symlinks again (/host
to /mnt/nfshost and /mnt/nfshost to /var/autofs/misc/host and ~/host
to /host - the first two so that when the network goes down, all I
have to do is remove (by script) /mnt/nfshost, and then autofs wont
try to mount something it can't when something tries to access
~/host)).
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
"We must use Tim as a tool, not as a couch." -- J F Kennedy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
2004-07-30 3:14 ` Tim Connors
@ 2004-07-30 7:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-07-30 16:42 ` Ulrich Drepper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2004-07-30 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tim Connors; +Cc: FabF, lkml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 214 bytes --]
> Obviously, nothing came about it.
you haven't been paying attention.... the current 2.6 kernels have a
patch series that is fixing this for most filesystems already with the
last few others in progress.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
2004-07-30 7:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2004-07-30 16:42 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-07-30 16:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Drepper @ 2004-07-30 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: arjanv; +Cc: lkml
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> you haven't been paying attention.... the current 2.6 kernels have a
> patch series that is fixing this for most filesystems already
Which reminds me: how can we safely determine whether this is
implemented for a local filesystem from userland? Unless we can do I
cannot change the value of SYMLOOP_MAX and people will not be able to
take advantage of the raised limit safely.
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
2004-07-30 16:42 ` Ulrich Drepper
@ 2004-07-30 16:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-07-30 18:16 ` Helge Hafting
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2004-07-30 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Drepper; +Cc: lkml
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 688 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > you haven't been paying attention.... the current 2.6 kernels have a
> > patch series that is fixing this for most filesystems already
>
> Which reminds me: how can we safely determine whether this is
> implemented for a local filesystem from userland? Unless we can do I
> cannot change the value of SYMLOOP_MAX and people will not be able to
> take advantage of the raised limit safely.
well actually it can't be per userland; it's just that we're almost at the
point where all filesystems are switched to the new infrastructure so that
the global constant can be bumped to 8 again...
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: symlinks follow 8 or 5?
2004-07-30 16:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
@ 2004-07-30 18:16 ` Helge Hafting
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Helge Hafting @ 2004-07-30 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: Ulrich Drepper, lkml
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:51:53PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 09:42:46AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> >
> > Which reminds me: how can we safely determine whether this is
> > implemented for a local filesystem from userland? Unless we can do I
> > cannot change the value of SYMLOOP_MAX and people will not be able to
> > take advantage of the raised limit safely.
>
> well actually it can't be per userland; it's just that we're almost at the
> point where all filesystems are switched to the new infrastructure so that
> the global constant can be bumped to 8 again...
Well, one can test it from userland - make a tempdir and create progressively
longer link chains until it fails. Quirky, sure.
Helge Hafting
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-30 18:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-29 5:34 symlinks follow 8 or 5? FabF
2004-07-30 3:14 ` Tim Connors
2004-07-30 7:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-07-30 16:42 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-07-30 16:51 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-07-30 18:16 ` Helge Hafting
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.