Joerg Schilling wrote: > Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:18:23AM -0700, Scott Rotondo wrote: >> >>> Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> >>>> This looks very cool but I haven't quite got my head around it >>>> completely yet. >>>> >>>> What happens if open(2) is called with O_NOFOLLOW set on one of these >>>> reparse points ? (Please answer for ZFS local access, NFS and CIFS). >>>> >>> Since these reparse points are implemented with a special type of >>> symlink, open() with O_NOFOLLOW should fail with such an object. >>> >> On the client side a server-side reparse point behaves like a mount >> point, very much in the same way as mirror mounts. >> >> Locally (on the server) a reparse point is stored in a symlink, but it >> isn't followed, and if it were then it'd behave like a mount, just as on >> the client side. >> >> There's nothing quite like following a symlink here, therefore >> O_NOFOLLOW shouldn't apply on the client side. >> > > If the feature is implemented as symlink, how will stat() vs. lstat() perform > on these objects? Will it confuse existing applications? > They will behave exactly as they do today if you were to define a symlink containing garbage text.
Alan > J?rg > >
