On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 10:47 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:51:13 -0400, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 23:19 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > Use lstat instead of stat > > > > This patch should probably come after 9p2000.u support is added, since > > now we transparently work 'through' symlinks (because legacy 9p2000 > > doesn't support them). > > Once 9p2000.u support is added we could represent symlinks and then a > > switch to lstat might be due. > > > > Shouldn't we aim to support 9p2000.L directly rather than supporting all > the three versions of protocol ? Linux guest have good support for > 9p2000.L I'm perfectly fine with adding support directly for 9p2000.L, I just figured that we'd need to go through the 9p2000.u milestone before getting there instead of getting to 9p2000.L directly. > Do you think the patch breaks any of the expectation of 9p2000 ?. It > would be nice to get the correct file attributes when fetching > attributes from the server, irrespective of whether client support symlink > or not. The idea behind following symlinks was that we could make them transparently work even without protocol support (yes, not exactly what the protocol defines - but it made it much more useful). Removing symlink following also changes more than just the lstat thing, you'd also need O_NOFOLLOW when opening files for example. -- Sasha. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
