From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: bugzilla-daemon-590EEB7GvNiWaY/ihj7yzEB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: [Bug 73301] Documentation misses case of link, linkat, symlink,
symlinkat giving ENOENT for a directory with a reference only held by a
process
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 13:11:30 +0000
Message-ID:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path:
In-Reply-To:
Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73301
Michael Kerrisk changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
--- Comment #2 from Michael Kerrisk ---
Steven,
(In reply to Steven Stewart-Gallus from comment #0)
> The errors printed out by the following code on symlink and symlinkat are
> missed by the documentation.
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int main() {
> if (-1 == mkdir("/tmp/temporary", S_IRWXU)) {
> perror("mkdir");
> }
>
> int dir = open("/tmp/temporary", O_RDONLY | O_CLOEXEC);
> if (-1 == dir) {
> perror("open");
> }
>
> if (-1 == rmdir("/tmp/temporary")) {
> perror("rmdir");
> }
>
> if (-1 == symlinkat("/", dir, "root")) {
> perror("symlinkat");
> }
So far, so good.
> char template_text[] = "/proc/self/fd/XXXXXXXXXXX/root";
> sprintf(template_text, "/proc/self/fd/%i/root", dir);
> if (-1 == symlink("/", template_text)) {
> perror("symlink");
> }
I'm a little puzzled, why would one want to make a symlink somewhere under
/proc?
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> The calls to symlink and symlinkat in this case give ENOENT errors.
For symlinkat(), I can see the logic. You're trying to create a link relative
to a directory that does not exist. Could the call reasonably do anything other
than fail?
> This
> might also be a small oversight which is probably impossible to change now.
> I wonder if the code thinks this is a dangling symbolic link (a case which
> is mentioned by the documentation)?
>
> The POSIX standard issue 7 also seems to miss this corner case (although it
> might simply be an omission of mentioning a system dependant case rather
> than a bug for the POSIX standard).
The specs in POSIX were driven from the Linux implementation effort, so I don;t
think that your hypothesis there would fit.
> I'm not sure how exactly one would explain this corner case in the
> documentation.
I'd be willing to give it a shot, but, first,I'm not sure what if anything to
say about the symlink() case. Do you have a more realistic example of that
case?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
--
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