Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:19:34 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Linda Walsh <lkml@tlinx.org>, Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: max symlink = 5? ?bug? ?feature deficit?
Message-ID: <20060212191934.GD21596@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>, Linda Walsh <lkml@tlinx.org>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
References: <43ED5A7B.7040908@tlinx.org> <20060212180601.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060212180601.GU27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1153
Lines: 27

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:06:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
 > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:31:07PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
 > > The maximum number of followed symlinks seems to be set to 5.
 > > 
 > > This seems small when compared to other filesystem limits.
 > > Is there some objection to it being raised?  Should it be
 > > something like Glib's '20' or '255'?
 > 
 > 	20 or 255 - not feasible (we'll get stack overflow from hell).
 > 8 - probably can be switched already; anybody who hadn't converted their
 > fs ->follow_link() to new model will just lose; in-tree instances are
 > already OK with that and out-of-tree folks had at least half a year
 > of warning.
 > 
 > 	Unless anybody yells right now, I'm switching it to 8 in post-2.6.16.

FWIW, Fedora/RHEL4 has done this for a long time.
I don't think I've ever seen any problems arise, but then symlink
mazes are thankfully somewhat rare.

		Dave

-
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/