[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080329011656.7c38265a@werewolf>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:16:56 +0100
From: "J.A. Magallón" <jamagallon@....com>
To: Ketil Froyn <ketil@...yn.name>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unexpected rename() behaviour
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:07:52 +0100, Ketil Froyn <ketil@...yn.name> wrote:
> 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?
>
man 2 rename:
If oldpath and newpath are existing hard links referring to the same
file, then rename() does nothing, and returns a success status.
That's why mv checks the special case.
--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Software is like sex:
\ It's better when it's free
Mandriva Linux release 2008.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.6.23-jam05 (gcc 4.2.2 20071128 (4.2.2-2mdv2008.1)) SMP PREEMPT
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists