On 01/22/2010 09:44 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:00:58AM -0600, Jamie Strandboge wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 11:33 -0500, Chris Lalancette wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .x-sc_prohibit_readlink | 2 ++ >>> cfg.mk | 5 +++++ >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 .x-sc_prohibit_readlink >> >> This breaks AppArmor (see why in my response to the AppArmor change). >> Readlink() can be used safely, so perhaps the check can be done such >> that if using readlink, you must check the return code. Or simply warn >> if using readlink. >> >> virFileResolveLink() behaves substantially differently than readlink() >> and deprecating readlink() without adjusting virFileResolveLink() is >> IMHO unwise (while AppArmor is the only thing affected atm, it seems at >> least possible that new future code may need/want to readlink() things >> in /proc (eg /proc/self/exe)). >> >> Jamie > > I understand this as being resolved by gnulib implementation, in which > case ACK to the make check addition, Right, exactly. Thanks, pushed now. -- Chris Lalancette -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list