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

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

Joseph Galbraith wrote:
> 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.

I take that back... if the OS is return ELOOP, I have
the error be SSH_FX_LINK_LOOP, and get rid of
SSH_FX_SYMLINK.

Thanks,

- Joseph