linux-kernel - unexpected rename() behaviour

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47ED8858.9000401@froyn.name>
Date:	Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:07:52 +0100
From:	Ketil Froyn <ketil@...yn.name>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: unexpected rename() behaviour

Hi,

The following behaviour was unexpected (tested on Debian/ext3):

$ echo 1 > 1
$ ln 1 2
$ cat 2
1
$ ./rename 2 1
$ echo $?
0
$ cat 2
1

The code for ./rename is simple:

---
/* compile: gcc -o rename rename.c */
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { return rename(argv[1], argv[2]); }
---

I thought this must be wrong behaviour, but I have been unable to 
confirm what the correct result should be in this special case. rename() 
returns success, but the source file is intact, which seems odd. The 
"mv" command specifically checks for cases like this and calls 
unlink("2") instead of rename("2", "1"). Are all applications meant to 
do this? What standards describe what rename() should do in cases like this?

Regards,
Ketil Froyn
--
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/