This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Call lstat() before setting flags to FTW_SLN
DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> POSIX.1-2008 doesn't describe this behavior explicitly in this case.
>
> See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422736
> and http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1121
>
> The spec also says "If FTW_PHYS is clear ... nftw() shall follow links
> instead of reporting them" but calling lstat() *is* reporting them,
> which the spec specifically forbids, if you read it that way.
Agreed.
> Hence, the clarification I requested from the Austin Group. If the spec
> says we're not allowed to call lstat(), your patch is inappropriate. If
> we are allowed to call lstat(), I think your patch is wrong - it may
> return FTW_NS for cases where lstat() might fail, where FTW_SLN should
> have been returned. I can't think of any such cases, but I've been
> surprised before. Also, cases where FTW_NS should be returned due to
> errors reading *non*dangling links should be preserved.
I think that's yet another interpretation of the spec.
So, we have to wait for their position.
> (I suspect calling LXSTAT() when we set the flag where your patch
> deleted lines, should result in the desired behavior, though, possibly
> with a test for !FTW_PHYS)
Ack.
Thanks for the references!
--
Tulio Magno