ralf wrote: > > Also, I don't see why insmod should need the realpath of the object. I > thought the basename of the object file is used as the module name, but > I have also seen few cases where the module name was not the file name, > so that seems to be only a convention and not mandatory.
so you're saying the current code in insmod.c, and even a change to use the _follow() version of readlink, would be okay, right? just making sure i understand you. :-) > I noticed that you test against MAXSYMLINKS only in the case of relative > symlinks. I consider this inconsistent. oops, you're right. that's an oversight, which i'll fix. (note that the test isn't really guaranteed -- there may be more undetected symlinks embedded in the middle of the path, since i'm only checking the tail. but it will be caught eventually.) > > Another question is what the function should do if the target of the > link does not exist. xmalloc_readlink will always return the target > name, whether it exists or not. I don't know whether this behavior would > be useful for xmalloc_readlink_follow or not. they should probably be consistent. i can't picture a case where it wouldn't be okay to return a dangling linkname. i'll fix this too. thanks for your comments. paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox