| To: | Eric Mei <ericm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: hardlink overflow |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 7 Sep 2002 15:26:11 -0700 |
| Cc: | xfs-list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3D79BCE4.9050703@mountainviewdata.com> |
| References: | <3D79BCE4.9050703@mountainviewdata.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 04:46:28PM +0800, Eric Mei wrote: > it seems linux-XFS didn't check it's overflow. simply add 65536 > hardlink to a file will make their nlink to 0. Yes, I can confirm I've seen this too. It's not hard to patch this in XFS, but in general I wonder if this fix doesn't really belong in the VFS layer and there *are* system calls that can return larger than the 16-bit value. --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS & NVIDIA Bug?, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS & NVIDIA Bug?, Andy Ritger |
| Previous by Thread: | hardlink overflow, Eric Mei |
| Next by Thread: | Re: hardlink overflow, Ragnar Kjørstad |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |