linux-kernel - Re: directory sort order no longer beginning with "." and ".."?

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:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:24:12 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	davecb@....com
CC:	Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>, Oliver.Soltys@...l.renesas.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: directory sort order no longer beginning with "." and ".."?

David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Alas, this implementation side-effect dates back to v6[1], and is so
> depended upon that even  CD filesystems, which are by no means Unix-like,
> contain dummy "." and ".." entries[2].

Er, no, I wouldn't call '.' and '..' implementation side-effects in 
themselves.  They're one of the particularly clever parts of the 
filesystem/namespace design.  I would agree that the specific 
implementation using "link" and "unlink" was a bit of a hack, and adding 
proper "mkdir" and "rmdir" made the world a better place.

>  I'd recommend either reproducing it or starting a project
> to hunt down and kill all the programs which assume it (;-))

Well, '.' and '..' are guaranteed to be somewhere in a (linked) 
directory, so all filesystems are required to make sure they exist 
somewhere, and programs which expect them to exist are perfectly within 
their rights.  But not necessarily the first two entries.

    J
--
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/