Re: Comments on draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-05.txt

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Damien Miller wrote:
> Joseph Galbraith wrote:
>
>
> > If no one else has any thoughts or objections to this,
> > I will add it to the draft as follows:
> >
> > New flag to open command:
> >
> >     SSH_FXF_NOFOLLOW                  = 0x00000200
> >
> > SSH_FXF_NOFOLLOW
> >   If the final component of the path is a symlink, the link
> >   file itself should be opened instead of the the target.
> >
> > What should the behavior be if a symlink file is opened and
> > then read or written to?
>
>
> I think that the open() should fail when NOFOLLOW is set and the target
> is a symlink. This is what the open(2) flag in Linux/BSD does, returning
> errno == ELOOP.

Okay, I've changed the description to read:

  If the final component of the path is a symlink,
  the open must fail, with the error SSH_FX_SYMLINK.

And added the error code SSH_FX_SYMLINK, with the
following description:

  The file could not be opened because it is a symbolic link
  and the NOFOLLOW flag was specified.

Does that sound right?

Thanks,

Joseph