| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| From: | Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se> |
| Message-Id: | <200301092238.h09Mc2V23447@brother.ludd.luth.se> |
| Subject: | Re: /dev/zero & /dev/full support - open, link and unlink fixes [PATCH] |
| To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Date: | Thu, 9 Jan 2003 23:38:01 +0100 (MET) |
| In-Reply-To: | <E18Wgm1-0000dY-00@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> from "Richard Dawe" at Jan 09, 2003 05:48:32 PM |
| X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
According to Richard Dawe:
> Below is a patch fixing bugs in the /dev/zero and /dev/full support.
> The bugs fixed are:
>
> * open: Don't decide we're emulating until we've checked that /dev/zero
> or /dev/full (as appropriate) have been installed.
>
> * link: Don't allow linking to or from /dev/{zero,full}.
Why?
> * unlink: Check the filenames. If we're not trying to remove
> /dev/{zero,full}, then pass it through.
This mean that "rm /dev/zero" can never be removed, right?
Does that mean that when somebody codes support for /dev/hda (e. g.)
he must add it to this list?
Right,
MartinS
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |