st_size of a symlink

st_size of a symlink

[Richard Weinberger]

Hi!

lstat(2) on /proc/$pid/exe gives me a stat object where st_size is 0.

Or:
rw@mantary:~> ls -l /proc/$$/exe
lrwxrwxrwx 1 rw users 0 23. Jul 17:02 /proc/16902/exe -> /bin/bash

The lstat(2) manpage says:
"The st_size field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular file 
or a symbolic link) in bytes.  The size of a symbolic link is the length 
of the pathname it contains, without a terminating null byte."

This property is also used in the example in the readlink(2) manpage.

Is this a procfs issue or is the manpage wrong?

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Jesper Juhl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Richard Weinberger wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> lstat(2) on /proc/$pid/exe gives me a stat object where st_size is 0.
> 
> Or:
> rw@mantary:~> ls -l /proc/$$/exe
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 rw users 0 23. Jul 17:02 /proc/16902/exe -> /bin/bash
> 
> The lstat(2) manpage says:
> "The st_size field gives the size of the file (if it is a regular file or a
> symbolic link) in bytes.  The size of a symbolic link is the length of the
> pathname it contains, without a terminating null byte."
> 
> This property is also used in the example in the readlink(2) manpage.
> 
> Is this a procfs issue or is the manpage wrong?
> 
I have relied on that behaviour (size of symlink being lengh of pathname 
it contains) in the past, so I know it used to work and I'd expect it to 
keep working.
I honestly never really thought about procfs, but checking now, it does 
seem that procfs doesn't quite do things right...

Just so we all know what kernel I'm running:
  [root@arch tmp]# uname -a
  Linux arch 3.4.6-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jul 20 08:21:26 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Let's see what procfs reports:
  [root@arch ~]# ls -l /proc/$$/exe
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 23 19:58 /proc/884/exe -> /bin/bash
Doesn't seem quite right....

Now let's see what tmpfs reports:
  [root@arch tmp]# mount | grep /tmp
  tmpfs on /tmp type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime)
  [root@arch ~]# cd /tmp
  [root@arch tmp]# ln -s /tmp foo
  [root@arch tmp]# ls -l foo
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 23 19:59 foo -> /tmp
Seems OK.

Let's check ext4:
  [root@arch tmp]# mount | grep /home
  /dev/sda4 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
  [root@arch tmp]# cd /home/jj
  [root@arch jj]# touch foo
  [root@arch jj]# ln -s foo bar
  [root@arch jj]# ls -l bar
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Jul 23 20:03 bar -> foo
Seems OK as well..

So how about devtmpfs?
  [root@arch jj]# mount | grep devtmpfs
  dev on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,nosuid,relatime,size=779400k,nr_inodes=194850,mode=755)
  [root@arch jj]# ls -l /dev/stderr 
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Jul 23 19:46 /dev/stderr -> /proc/self/fd/2
Also looks OK...

So, from my point of view it looks like procfs is the one who has got it 
wrong.
We should probably fix that (IMVHO).


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj-IYz4IdjRLj0sV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:09:14PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> So, from my point of view it looks like procfs is the one who has got it 
> wrong.
> We should probably fix that (IMVHO).

Fix it _how_?  Try to rename a binary you have running in a process.
Or rename its cwd.  Or rename an opened file.  Watch the corresponding
procfs symlink (still pointing to the swame object) change.  With
no way to tell that some sucker had looked at st_size some time ago
and might get surprised by the change.

The fact is, st_size is just a useful hint for symlink target length.
It tells you the likely sufficient size of buffer.  There's a reason
why readlink(2) returns what it returns; you *can't* rely on the
earlier lstat() results or, for that matter, any prior information.
If nothing else, I could rm that symlink and create a new one in
the meanwhile.  You need to check what it had returned and deal with
insufficient buffer size.  By retrying readlink() with bigger buffer.
With procfs there's just a few more ways the readlink() output can
change, that's all.

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Jesper Juhl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012, Al Viro wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:09:14PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > So, from my point of view it looks like procfs is the one who has got it 
> > wrong.
> > We should probably fix that (IMVHO).
> 
> Fix it _how_?  

By returning the size as the number of bytes in the name the link is 
currently pointing at.

> Try to rename a binary you have running in a process.
> Or rename its cwd.  Or rename an opened file.  Watch the corresponding
> procfs symlink (still pointing to the swame object) change.  With
> no way to tell that some sucker had looked at st_size some time ago
> and might get surprised by the change.
> 
Sure, length's may change and an app needs to be prepared for that, but 
that's no reason to always return 0 (zero) for length for links in procfs.
We can do better and return the actual length of whatever the link is 
pointing to currently - just like other filesystems do.

> The fact is, st_size is just a useful hint for symlink target length.

Sure.

> It tells you the likely sufficient size of buffer.  There's a reason
> why readlink(2) returns what it returns; you *can't* rely on the
> earlier lstat() results or, for that matter, any prior information.

I know that. That's not the issue. The issue is that procfs *could* return 
more useful info than it does currently.

> If nothing else, I could rm that symlink and create a new one in
> the meanwhile.  You need to check what it had returned and deal with
> insufficient buffer size.

Of course.

>  By retrying readlink() with bigger buffer.
> With procfs there's just a few more ways the readlink() output can
> change, that's all.
> 
Still not a good reason to just return 0 IMHO.


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jj-IYz4IdjRLj0sV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>       http://www.chaosbits.net/
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Richard Weinberger]

On 23.07.2012 22:47, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> Fix it _how_?
>
> By returning the size as the number of bytes in the name the link is
> currently pointing at.

This is not easy.
procfs has no clue where the link pointing at.
The information is generated while accessing the link.
tmpfs on the other hand has this information because symlinks get only 
changed through tmpfs...

>>   By retrying readlink() with bigger buffer.
>> With procfs there's just a few more ways the readlink() output can
>> change, that's all.
>>
> Still not a good reason to just return 0 IMHO.

IMHO the lstat() and readlink() manpages have to be more precise about 
st_size.

Thanks,
//richard

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Guillem Jover]

On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 00:07:48 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On 23.07.2012 22:47, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>Fix it _how_?
> >
> >By returning the size as the number of bytes in the name the link is
> >currently pointing at.
> 
> This is not easy.
> procfs has no clue where the link pointing at.
> The information is generated while accessing the link.
> tmpfs on the other hand has this information because symlinks get
> only changed through tmpfs...

Well, can't the link be accessed when getting the stat information
then?

> >>  By retrying readlink() with bigger buffer.
> >>With procfs there's just a few more ways the readlink() output can
> >>change, that's all.
> >>
> >Still not a good reason to just return 0 IMHO.
> 
> IMHO the lstat() and readlink() manpages have to be more precise
> about st_size.

They document what POSIX says:

  <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/sys/stat.h.html>

regards,
guillem

Re: st_size of a symlink

[Richard Weinberger]

On 24.07.2012 01:13, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Well, can't the link be accessed when getting the stat information
> then?

Sure, but it's not trivial.

>> IMHO the lstat() and readlink() manpages have to be more precise
>> about st_size.
>
> They document what POSIX says:

This does not make it any better...

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html