On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:30:24AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > why should you expect sane behavior from tools that assume POSIX?
If xreadlink() assumed POSIX, it would allocate a fixed buffer of 256 bytes. > By violating that rule of POSIX, the bug is squarely on your FS's shoulders, I'm not even sure my toy FS violates POSIX. st_size contains the /on-disk/ size of the symlink, not the length of the symlink in bytes. It's the latter value xreadlink() wants; the former may very well be a gross overestimate. And it just so happens to be in this case. Claiming a 93B symlink takes 300MB on-disk: Pathological? Certainly. I'm not convinced that's a violation of any rules though. > an uphill battle because it will be more than ls that are affected. *shrug* Few programs actively check for symlinks, never mind lstat()ing them. In practice it works very well. :) Regardless of whether my toy FS is broken, xreadlink should behave in a more robust matter. That's all I'm saying. Cheers, /Liyang This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
