Subject: LINK a symbolic link?

From: Peter Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:35:52 +0100 (CET)

Is it valid to LINK a symbolic link? The Linux server currently returns 
NFS4ERR_SYMLINK in this case, but NFS4ERR_SYMLINK is not listed as a valid 
error for LINK in the draft specification. 

-- 
Peter Åstrand                Telephone: +46-13-29 08 61
Cendio Systems               E-mail: [email-masked]
Teknikringen 3
583 30 Linköping

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:25:37 -0600

> error for LINK in the draft specification. 

The type of the source object for the LINK operation can be a symbolic
link.  The server should allow the LINK to succeed.

-- 
Spencer

---

From: Neil Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:46:44 +1100 (EST)

> link.  The server should allow the LINK to succeed.

I don't think that is reasonable.  What is the server filesystem
simply does not support hard links on symlinks.

The file system use by the Domain/OS filesystem on apollo
workstations (anyone remember those?) did not support hardlinks on
symlinks though it did support hardlinks of files.

I think the server should be able to fail hardlinks on symlinks much
as it can on directories.  Maybe NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP or similar would be
appropriate.

NeilBrown

---

From: Spencer Shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:59:38 -0600

> simply does not support hard links on symlinks.

"should allow", lower case; I did not say "MUST allow".  Sorry that I
did not differentiate appropriately.  I was trying to communicate that
the should allow it if possible.

> as it can on directories.  Maybe NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP or similar would be

NFS4ERR_NOTSUPP is most appropriate if the server does not allow LINK
on a particular type (unless it is a directory and NFS4ERR_ISDIR
should be returned).

-- 
Spencer