In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordan Hubbard writes:
>From: Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat]
>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
>> Symlinks do not have to contain paths. People use them for all sorts
>> of things so it would be totally inappropriate to put any sort of
>
>True. It would break phk's malloc debugging features to disable this,
>for example.
Not only that, but considerning that a symlink can point into a
different filesystem even in normal use, there is no simple way to
validate the valididty of the name.
Consider this symlink:
ln -s /my_FAT16_filesystem/foo:bar /tmp/blaf
as a silly example of this.
The only two real restrictions on symlinks are that they cannot
contain NUL characters and that '/' means what '/' does in all
filesystem naming on UNIX.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
