On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 10:10 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello Ben, > > On 09/30/2014 01:33 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > readlink(2) claims: > > > > Since Linux 2.6.39, pathname can be an empty string, in which case the > > call operates on the file referred to by dirfd (which may have been > > obtained using the open(2) O_PATH flag). In this case, dirfd can refer > > to any type of file, not just a directory. > > > > The last sentence seems to be incorrect. dirfd must refer to a symlink > > that has been opened using the O_PATH flag. (The symlink could refer to > > a file, directory, or nothing, but opening with O_PATH doesn't resolve > > it.) > > Yes, you must be right. The existing text makes no sense; I suspect > a cut-and-paste error as I went through updating some of the *at.2 pages. > I've changed the text to: > > Since Linux 2.6.39, pathname can be an empty string, in which > case the call operates on the symbolic link referred to by dirfd > (which should have have been obtained using the open(2) with the > O_PATH and O_NOFOLLOW flags). > > Okay? LGTM. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
