Added some interesting functionality to my cygwin sandbox

Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Wed Jul 2 17:06:00 GMT 2003


On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 12:48:01PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:15:33AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >Why?  I just tried it on Linux, and could not create a symlink to an empty
>> >path.  If we added some logic to link processing code in Cygwin to revert
>> >to the Win32 path if the POSIX path is empty, I don't see any reason why
>> >this woulnd't work...  It won't even be a slowdown for normal symlinks,
>> >since we'd only do this bit of logic if we failed to open the POSIX path.
>>
>> I really like this idea.  Corinna?  The symlink stuff is your code.  What
>> do you think?
>
>There is, of course, a question of how to create such symlinks...  There
>will have to be some way to pass this information to the symlink()
>function (which only takes 2 parameters), or create a new function.  We'll
>also need a command-line utility for this (either a new "ln" flag, or a
>separate program).
>
>> (Of course, you can *always* use the mount table for all of this.  I wonder
>> if we should just be using the mount table here.)
>
>Well, we could, I guess, but then we should be consistent, e.g., since we
>have /proc/registry, why not have /proc/windir?  Except that I'm not sure
>we can mount anything under the /proc subtree...

I was just saying that is a user wants to have a verified way of accessing
a DOS path they could use the mount table.

>FWIW, me too (at least, with valid paths).  I don't think we should care
>about invalid paths, as they will never clash with anything in the
>namespace anyway.

But the concept of an invalid path now just includes the nul byte which
isn't really very useful, IMO.

cgf



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list