linux-kernel - Re: unlink(nonexistent): EROFS or ENOENT?

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4DE270FA.6060702@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date:	Sun, 29 May 2011 20:14:50 +0400
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: unlink(nonexistent): EROFS or ENOENT?

29.05.2011 20:08, Michael Tokarev пишет:
> Hello.
> 
> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT.  I'd expect
> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
> in my opinion.

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html
this case is quite clear:

 [EROFS]
    The directory entry to be unlinked
    is part of a read-only file system

Ie, the entry is a _part_ of a file system, so it should be
_existing_ entry to start with.

> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
> this case.
> 
> Thanks!

/mjt
--
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/