Alan Cox writes:
> > > Very interesting. pwd should be using getcwd(2), which doesn't
> > > give a damn for inode numbers. If you have seriously old pwd binary
> > > that tries to track the thing down to root by hands - yes, it doesn't
> > > work.
> >
> > Hm. strace suggests my pwd is walking up the path. But WTF would it
> > break? 2.4.7 was fine. What did I break?
>
> Sounds like you are using libc5. The old style pwd should be
> reliable but its much slower and can't see across protected
> directory paths
Yes, I use libc5. And I don't care about old pwd being slower. And I
certainly don't want to break it, even if I wasn't using it.
By "protected directory paths", you mean a directory with read access?
Well, rx access is available for the whole path. And the inums looked
fine. So the breakage is odd.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:46 EST