Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:33:15 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Igor Shmukler <shmukler@mail.ru> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>, Sergey Uvarov <uvarovsl@mail.pnpi.spb.ru>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vn_fullpath() again Message-ID: <20050906153315.GB28262@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <E1ECfMF-0009JQ-00.shmukler-mail-ru@f16.mail.ru> References: <868xyack37.fsf@xps.des.no> <E1ECfMF-0009JQ-00.shmukler-mail-ru@f16.mail.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2005-09-06 19:27, Igor Shmukler <shmukler@mail.ru> wrote: > Perhaps, I do not get it or maybe you are do not getting my point. > > There are times when resolving would not be possible or a name returned is > not necessarily the one used when file was first accessed. We have discussed > it here and everyone agreed on that. The hardlinks or files unlinked while > vnode is still open are corner cases. The unlink is a bit more difficult to > deal with, but hardlinks are probably not a big issue. As long as we can get > A name, we may not even need to know THE name. Why does it make sense to get name A in the following scenario then? user 1 creates file A user 1 hardlinks this to B user 1 gets the "real name" of A user 2 deletes file A user 2 creates a new file called A user 1 tries to access A and gets something unexpected Corner cases and their handling *is* important. Find another way to do whatever it is you're thinking you can do with "the real name of a vnode".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050906153315.GB28262>