This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?

To: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
Subject: Re: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?
From: Alexander Kjeldaas <astor@guardian.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:33:19 +0100
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>, GNU C Library <libc-hacker@cygnus.com>
References: <m100HVD-000390C@ocean.lucon.org> <Pine.SOL.3.95.990112235656.19392C-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>

On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 12:05:50AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> 
> 	Looks like we already have it. Depending on what you mean, that
> is. If you are concerned about number of nested symlinks (traversed
> without eating new components of name) - it's 5. 

Btw, it's too low.  In some circumstances you can't compile bind
because of this limitation.

astor

-- 
 Alexander Kjeldaas, Guardian Networks AS, Trondheim, Norway
 http://www.guardian.no/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?
  - From: Tom Eastep <eastep@loc1.tandem.com>

References:
- Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?
  - From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
- Re: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?
  - From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
- Re: Should we have MAXSYMLINKS?
  - From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]