On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 09:13:24PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > d_path() is the least of the problems, actually. Directory tree structure on > > those, OTOH, is a serious problem. If you want to have getdents(2) on that > > shite, you want an opened descriptor that looks like a directory. And _that_ > > opens a large can of worms. Because now you have fchdir(2) to cope with, > > lookups going through /proc/self/fd/<n>/..., etc., etc. > > Seriously, nobody wants fchdir(). And getdents() does not imply fchdir(). Yes, it does. If it's a directory, fchdir(2) gets to deal with it. If it's not, no getdents(2). Unless you special-case the damn thing in said fchdir(2). > As for whether we'd need foobarat() on such a beast or let > /proc/self/fd/<n> be dereferenced, I think no. So comes the argument: > but then we'll break all those libraries and whatnot relying on these > constructs. Well, sorry, so would we if we didn't introduce this in > the first place. That's not really breaking anything, it's just > setting expectations. Translation: we'll special-case that in procfs, etc., etc. and handwave the problems away. Lovely...
