VFS: masquerading lstat as stat - dangerous?

Sean Dunn sean at troublemakerstudios.com
Fri Sep 30 19:45:33 GMT 2005

Yes, this is fine. Thank you!


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jra at samba.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:02 PM
To: Sean Dunn
Cc: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: VFS: masquerading lstat as stat - dangerous?

On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 02:50:14AM -0500, Sean Dunn wrote:
> In my testing, having all lstat calls just call SMB_VFS_NEXT_STAT
> instead of SMB_VFS_NEXT_LSTAT works great, even when the underlying
> is really a link.. I did this because I don't want the client to know
> the difference between a link and a directory, but is this inherently
> dangerous, or am I breaking a rule someplace? My logic is that stat()
> calls in Linux transparently traverse a link to a target directory, so
> this should be fine.. but, because I'm still relatively new to this, I
> thought I'd ask.

This would defeat things like the "wide links" parameter, so long
as you're ok with this....


More information about the samba-technical mailing list