linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:17:15 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] st_nlink after rmdir() and rename()

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Surprisingly, the results are *NOT* identical wrt fstat(); for most of
> the filesystems we will get 0 in both cases (as expected), but some will
> leave 1 in buf2.st_nlink.

Why do we care? Some filesystems don't support i_nlink at all, so it's
always 1. Others won't do the real delete until later (nfs
sillyrename), so returning 0 would be wrong and insane.

So the fact is, expecting 0,0 seems to be an incorrect expectation,
and I don't understand why you would really care. Does it matter?

                        Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/