Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3E1F1A50.298DBB7E@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:09:04 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: /dev/zero & /dev/full support - open, link and unlink fixes [PATCH]
References:	<200301101827 DOT h0AIRE626291 AT brother DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> 
> According to Richard Dawe:
> > Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> > > According to Richard Dawe:
> > > > * link: Don't allow linking to or from /dev/{zero,full}.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because we don't support hardlinks. See:
> 
> Ah, yes. Silly me was think of symlinks. That's still allowed, right?

Yes:

bash-2.04$ rm -f foo
bash-2.04$ !ln
ln -s /dev/zero foo
bash-2.04$ !ls
ls -ld foo
lrw-r--r--    1 rich     root          510 Jan 10 19:03 foo -> /dev/zero

Although dereferencing it doesn't:

bash-2.04$ ls -Ld foo
ls: foo: No such file or directory (ENOENT)

I suspect there's some interaction between the symlink code and the FSEXT code
that needs sorting out here. I've added it to my to-do list. I think the
/dev/{zero,full} FSEXT will need more code, rather than there being a bug in
the existing code.

[snip]
> The list consisting of "/dev/zero" and "/dev/full". I forgot all about
> it's an FSEXT.
> 
> (I think I'm getting really dumb of lately.)
[snip]

I don't think you're alone there (i.e.: me too). Maybe it was too much
wine/beer/Christmas pudding/TV/board games at Christmas?

I've just committed the patch.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -