From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932096AbWFRWGy (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:06:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932097AbWFRWGy (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:06:54 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:32985 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932096AbWFRWGx (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:06:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:06:50 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat Message-ID: <20060618220650.GG27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <200606171913.k5HJDM3U021408@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20060618191629.GE27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <4495AC3B.4020508@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4495AC3B.4020508@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 12:40:43PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Well, the patch as sent in does seem sane, as long as glibc doesn't start > > defaulting to the insane behaviour. Giving users the _ability_ to link to > > the symlink target is certainly not wrong, regardless of any standard. > > Doing it by default is another matter. > > I do not intend to change the link implementation in glibc. That would > be majorly stupid, it'd break the ABI. > > The AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag to linkat was the result of the discussion > how to resolve the issue of the conflict between POSIX and the Linux > implementation of link (BTW: the Solaris link syscall behaves the same > as Linux's). ... while FreeBSD still doesn't have that 4.2BSD bug fixed, the suckers. > This is an easy an non-intrusive way to help people who > depend on the questionable POSIx-mandated behavior to work around the > incompatiblity. Nothing more. Don't change the link syscall, don't > assume the glibc will be changed. This is only one little extra bit of > new functionality. *shrug* Fine by me; it's not really useful, but it's not a serious bloat either. ACKed-by: Al Viro