From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264155AbUAPBAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:00:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264264AbUAPBAb (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:00:31 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:49813 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264155AbUAPBAa (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:00:30 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: mru@kth.se (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase recursive symlink limit from 5 to 8 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:56:51 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2flllofnvp6.fsf@saruman.uio.no> <1073814570.4431.3.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <817jzsd8lg.wl@omega.webmasters.gr.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ILp5ispdmwItBwrxc53sPptW2JA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org GOTO Masanori writes: > At Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:49:30 +0100, > Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> > 6 does seem pretty low. What was the reason for setting it there? Is >> > there a downside to increasing it? >> >> It was reduced down from 8 because it can lead to stack overflows. >> Recursive links like this usually point at a quite broken filesystem >> setup too afaik. > > But I still think 6 is too small from user level point of view, as > Petter wrote. The example is /usr/lib library links. I got bug > report which complained that a library want to use "bounce" link: > > /usr/lib/liba -> /etc/alternatives/liba -> /usr/lib/another/libb. > > If .so file uses major.minor scheme, then /usr/lib/liba.so links: > > /usr/lib/liba.so -> /usr/lib/liba.so.2 -> /usr/lib/liba.so.2.3 > > and so on. It can easily exceed 6 symlinks. I think the correct fix > is to make VFS not to overflow stacks. Is it allowable change? One of the reasons for the limit is that it doesn't require any special detection of circular links. -- Måns Rullgård mru@kth.se