[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9vp3LT6s+qASCyF2-dEjD4caR67NLT15ad+SXi1fPPGxS-tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:56:35 +0100
From: Xavier Roche <xavier.roche@...olia.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: race between vfs_rename and do_linkat (mv and link)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:06 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Does POSIX actually make any promises in that area?
My understanding is that we inherit from the mandatory atomicity of
all rename calls
(https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/rename.html)
> That specification requires that the action of the function be atomic.
We also inherit from the link call that is required to be atomic
(https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/link.html)
> The link() function shall atomically create a new link for the existing file and the link count of the file shall be incremented by one
Powered by blists - more mailing lists