Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > But what about symlinks? >> > >> > a g >> > b h->a >> > c >> > f->g >> > >> > The moment you traverse the f->g symlink above, >> > the entire tree, a/b/c/f, is no longer referenced, >> > so the h->a link may take you back to a new inode, >> > and the cycle will not be detected. >> >> Right. So find either holds a file descriptor for each symlink >> traversed, > > BTW, this could make sense also if you want ultra-correctness on POSIX > filesystems, since otherwise you might get false positives from the > cycle detector.
I seem to recall that fts punts when dereferencing symlinks, by turning off all use of fchdir/openat and instead reverting to the use of full relative file names. As such, it is then subject to the PATH_MAX limitation. So far, no one has complained :-)
