Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:07:37 -0800 From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unexpected softupdate inconsistency Message-ID: <20040310230738.01EE15D04@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:03:59 %2B1100." <200403102303.KAA12747@lightning.itga.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au> > Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:03:59 +1100 > Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > > > msergeant@snsonline.net said: > > In situations like this it can be useful to use vim on the dir entry > > that is affected and remove the invalid filenames. This has worked for > > me before. > > I'm astounded. > > Directories are not supposed to be modifiable by user-space processes at all, > only with link/unlink/creat/etc system calls, because the risk of filesystem > corruption is huge. What does vim do here that rm doesn't? And how does it get > around the "cant write(2) directories" ban? > > See man open: > > [EISDIR] The named file is a directory, and the arguments spec- > ify it is to be opened for writing. emacs and XEmacs dired has been able to manipulate directories for as ling as I've been around. I assume that they DO use the standard system calls. (This includes vim, which I don't use.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040310230738.01EE15D04>