|Anonymous | Login||2022-06-30 23:28 UTC|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs|
|Viewing Issue Simple Details|
|ID||Category||Severity||Type||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0000534||[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7] Shell and Utilities||Editorial||Clarification Requested||2012-01-04 23:16||2019-06-10 08:55|
|Final Accepted Text||See Desired Action.|
|Summary||0000534: unclear phrasing in "mv" regarding same source and destination file|
I. Suppose I want to replace a hard link with a symlink without disturbing other processes that might want to use it:
ln file link
ln -s file link.tmp
mv -f link.tmp link
Is this required to succeed? What guarantees, if any, are there concerning the state of "link" when all is said and done?
II. Similarly, suppose I do:
ln -s file file.tmp
mv -f file.tmp file
Is this required to succeed, and must "file" end up a symlink to itself?
III. How about this?
ln file file2
ln -s file link
ln -s file2 link.tmp
mv -f link.tmp link
Is this required to succeed, and must "link" end up as a symlink to file2 if it does?
Reading the mv specification, it seems to come down to what it means for two operands to name the same file in step (2).
If naming the same file means referring to the same inode after following symlinks (e.g., checked using stat()), that would mean that in example (III) above an implementation can succeed by removing link.tmp and leaving link as a symlink to "file" (step 2c).
I suspect the intent was rather for "name the same file" to mean referring to the same inode after path resolution (e.g., checked using lstat()). This would match the corresponding case in rename():
| If the old argument and the new argument resolve to either the same
| existing directory entry or different directory entries for the same
| existing file, rename() shall return successfully and perform no other
There might be some alternative non-buggy condition to use. See http://debbugs.gnu.org/6960 [^] for some thoughts on that subject.
|Desired Action||On line 97307, change "name the same existing file" to "resolve to either the same existing directory entry or different directory entries for the same existing file".|
Geoff Clare commented on the mailing list:
I think the standard is clear what "name the same file" means.
The operands are pathnames, and the way that pathnames name files
is through the pathname resolution process.
Therefore "A and B name the same file" means "A and B resolve to
directory entries for the same file".
> Desired Action:
> On line 97307, change "name the same existing file" to "resolve to either
> the same existing directory entry or different directory entries for the
> same existing file".
I believe this change would not alter the requirements of the
standard, although I would not oppose the change since it improves
consistency in the wording between mv and rename().
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||New Issue|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Status||New => Under Review|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Assigned To||=> ajosey|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Name||=> Jonathan Nieder|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Section||=> mv|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Page Number||=> 2955|
|2012-01-04 23:16||jrn||Line Number||=> 97307|
|2012-01-12 16:58||nick||Interp Status||=> ---|
|2012-01-12 16:58||nick||Final Accepted Text||=> See Desired Action.|
|2012-01-12 16:58||nick||Note Added: 0001091|
|2012-01-12 16:58||nick||Status||Under Review => Resolution Proposed|
|2012-01-12 16:58||nick||Resolution||Open => Accepted|
|2012-01-12 16:59||nick||Tag Attached: tc2-2008|
|2012-01-12 17:00||nick||Status||Resolution Proposed => Resolved|
|2019-06-10 08:55||agadmin||Status||Resolved => Closed|
|Mantis 1.1.6[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group|