Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:25:57 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com, wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr Subject: Re: disabled symlinks Message-ID: <199710311325.AAA17135@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> } diff -u -r1.51.2.6 vfs_syscalls.c >> } --- vfs_syscalls.c 1997/10/23 18:04:55 1.51.2.6 >> } +++ vfs_syscalls.c 1997/10/30 22:24:47 >> } @@ -1326,8 +1328,10 @@ >> } return (error); >> } vp = nd.ni_vp; >> } error = vn_stat(vp, &sb, p); >> } - if (vp->v_type == VLNK) >> } + if (vp->v_type == VLNK && >> } + (vp->v_mount->mnt_flag & MNT_NOSYMLINKFOLLOW) != 0) > ^^ > >> This test looks backwards to me (it changes the behavior if the >> new nosymlinkfollow option is not set). I'm also not clear as >> to why the behaviour even depends on the option. It's also wrong because it breaks the setting of S_IFLNK. >vfs_syscalls.c rev 1.62 >Symlinks do not have modes though, they are accessable to everything that >can read the directory (as before). They are made to show this fact at >lstat time (they appear as mode 0777 always, since that's how the the >lookup routines in the kernel treat them). This seems OK. >> Also, shouldn't >> the same change be made to both lstat() and olstat()? > >This is a cosmetic change. I don't think we should change >old system calls if it is not necessary. I doubt that anybody >use an old ls(1) command. Old syscalls should work as consistently as possible if they are supported. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710311325.AAA17135>