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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

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