On 21/11/14 19:55, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 21/11/14 18:09, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> If 'a' and 'b' are hardlinks, then the command `mv a b & mv b a` >>>> can result in both being removed as mv needs to emulate the >>>> move with an unlink of the source file. This can only be done >>>> without races in the kernel and so mv was recently changed >>>> to not allow this operation at all. mv could safely reintroduce >>>> this feature by leveraging a new flag for renameat() for which >>>> an illustrative/untested patch is attached. >>> >>> ISTM the issue is that rename(2) does nothing if the source and dest >>> are hardlinks to each other. Is that intentional? I don't see that >>> behavior as required in the POSIX rename docs. >> >> It's surprising and annoying that existing systems do this, >> but they're conforming to the wording of POSIX I thinkg as >> it says that rename() does nothing when the source and dest >> _file_ is the same. What POSIX really meant I suppose was _file name_. >> Eric, perhaps an adjustment could be proposed to POSIX, as I can't >> see anything relying on the current behavior? > > Which Eric? The one I forgot to CC :/ 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
