On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:07:28AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 07:46:40AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > BTW, you want to update 005 in there - we are back to correct "maximum > > > is 40 symlinks total, 8 levels on nesting" for all syscalls. Add the > > > 41st symlink to your chain in testcase ;-) > > > > Unless there's a way to read out these limits, I'm not sure it's a good idea > > to add a test like that to xfstests --- it's too fragile since at some point > > we might change what those limits might be. > > > > Also, xfstests is primarily intended to be a file system level stress tester > > testing for correctness, and issues of whether we blow up on the 40th, > > 41st, or 42nd symlink seems more like an ABI issue --- and even there I'm > > not sure the ABI specification should be quite that detailed over what's > > allowed and not allowed. > > That's not what it tests anyway. It tests that we get ELOOP at some > point, and do not blow the stack. Which is someting that older Linux > code used to do. Yes. See patch upthread (or in for-linus). There are two parts in that test; *both* would actually trigger the b0rkage in the last commit of what got merged - the only reason why the first one (long chain) did not was that the limit got fixed and -ELOOP was no longer triggered. Symlink to itself did, of course, trigger it - complete with oops. -- 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
