On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 11:48:18AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 04:51:09PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > expect 0 symlink ${name256} ${n0}
> > expect 0 unlink ${n0}
> >
> > Test 6 is failing with ENAMETOOLONG
> > Test 7 is failing (correctly) with ENOENT because test 6 failed.
> >
> > So there's only one failure here, and that is that that we're rejecting
> > ${name256} as too long. I think that getname() is doing this. Seems sane
> > to me to disallow symlinking to pathnames that can't be constructed,
> > even if POSIX apparently allows it.
>
> i'd rather expect this to be the component validation in xfs_symlink.
> It's superflous and not done by any other fiesystem.
Ah yes, you are right - PATH_MAX != NAME_MAX...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m.,
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
ntfs-3g-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
