On 05/15/2013 03:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/15/2013 06:38 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 01/17/2013 04:22 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> On 01/17/2013 01:03 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>>> The discussion leading to this is at http://bugs.gnu.org/13447 >>>> In summary other systems allow an empty target for a symlink, >>>> and POSIX specifies that it should be allowed? >>> >>> In relation to this, Eric Blake said: >>> >>>> In today's Austin Group meeting, I was tasked to open a new bug that >>>> would state specifically how the empty symlink is resolved; the intent >>>> is to allow both Solaris behavior (current directory) and BSD behavior >>>> (ENOENT). Meanwhile, everyone was in agreement that the Linux kernel >>>> has a bug for rejecting the creation of an empty symlink, but once that >>>> bug is fixed, then Linux can choose either Solaris or BSD behavior for >>>> how to resolve such a symlink. >>>> >>>> It will probably be a bug report similar to this one, which regarded how >>>> to handle a symlink containing just slashes: >>>> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=541 >> >> Following up from http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=649 >> It seems POSIX will now allow the current Linux behavior of returning ENOENT, > > Huh? Linux currently doesn't allow the creation of an empty symlink. > That link mentions the current BSD behavior of returning ENOENT when > resolving such a symlink (that is, what stat() does when chasing through > an empty symlink, provided such a symlink is first created). Ah OK. The standards are hard enough to interpret, never mind the comments discussing the standards :) Not helping was that symlink() returns ENOENT in this case too. >> or the Solaris behavior of allowing empty symlink targets. > > The point made in that bug report is that Linux is buggy for not > allowing symlink() to create an empty symlink in the first place; once > you allow the creation of an empty symlink, then how to handle such a > symlink in stat() is up to you whether to copy Solaris' or BSD's example. OK cool, that make more sense to me. Adding in a couple more recipients to garner interest... thanks, Pádraig. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
