From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: max symlink = 5? ?bug? ?feature deficit? Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:19:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20060212191934.GD21596@redhat.com> References: <43ED5A7B.7040908@tlinx.org> <20060212180601.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linda Walsh , Linux-Kernel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:64486 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750876AbWBLTUl (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:20:41 -0500 To: Al Viro Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060212180601.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:06:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:31:07PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote: > > The maximum number of followed symlinks seems to be set to 5. > > > > This seems small when compared to other filesystem limits. > > Is there some objection to it being raised? Should it be > > something like Glib's '20' or '255'? > > 20 or 255 - not feasible (we'll get stack overflow from hell). > 8 - probably can be switched already; anybody who hadn't converted their > fs ->follow_link() to new model will just lose; in-tree instances are > already OK with that and out-of-tree folks had at least half a year > of warning. > > Unless anybody yells right now, I'm switching it to 8 in post-2.6.16. FWIW, Fedora/RHEL4 has done this for a long time. I don't think I've ever seen any problems arise, but then symlink mazes are thankfully somewhat rare. Dave