On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:48:18AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:09PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > expect 0 symlink ${name256} ${n0}
> > expect 0 unlink ${n0}
> >
> > Test 6 is failing with ENAMETOOLONG
> > Test 7 is failing (correctly) with ENOENT because test 6 failed.
> >
> > So there's only one failure here, and that is that that we're rejecting
> > ${name256} as too long. I think that getname() is doing this. Seems sane
> > to me to disallow symlinking to pathnames that can't be constructed,
> > even if POSIX apparently allows it.
>
> i'd rather expect this to be the component validation in xfs_symlink.
> It's superflous and not done by any other fiesystem.
Ah yes, you are right - PATH_MAX != NAME_MAX...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
