RE : RE : [ECOS] Bugs in path handling for JFFS2, RAMFS and ROMFS

["Vincent Catros" <Vincent dot Catros at elios-informatique dot fr>]

Hello,

What about the proposed patch?
Will it be included or not?

Regards.

Vincent

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: ecos-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com [mailto:ecos-patches-
> owner@sources.redhat.com] De la part de Vincent Catros
> Envoyé?: lundi 23 février 2004 11:05
> À?: 'Andrew Lunn'
> Cc?: ecos-patches@ecos.sourceware.org
> Objet?: RE : [ECOS] Bugs in path handling for JFFS2, RAMFS and ROMFS
> 
> POSIX-1003.2-Draft-12:
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De?: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@lunn.ch]
> > Envoyé?: vendredi 20 février 2004 20:02
> > À?: Vincent Catros
> > Cc?: ecos-patches@ecos.sourceware.org
> > Objet?: Re: [ECOS] Bugs in path handling for JFFS2, RAMFS and ROMFS
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 01:59:46PM +0100, Vincent Catros wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I found 2 bugs in path handling for JFFS2, RAMFS and ROMFS.
> > >
> > > BUG 1 : Multi '/' path.
> > > Description :
> > > If you use path with multi '/' that doesn't work.
> > > i.e : chdir("/tmp////tmp")
> > >
> > >
> > > BUG 2 : '/' terminated path.
> > > If you use path terminated with a '/' that doesn't work.
> > > i.e : chdir("/tmp/")
> > >
> > > Proposed patchs fixe this issues.
> >
> > I know this is generally accepted with unix like systems, but could
> > somebody point me towards a section of the POSIX standard that
states
> > this?
>
> 2.2.2.102  pathname:  A string that is used to identify a file.
> 
> A pathname consists of, at most, {PATH_MAX} bytes, including the
> terminating null character.  It has an optional beginning slash,
> followed by zero or more filenames separated by slashes. If the
pathname
> refers to a directory, it may also have one or more trailing slashes.
> Multiple successive slashes are considered to be the same as one
slash.
> A pathname that begins with two successive slashes may be interpreted
in
> an implementation-defined manner, although more than two leading
slashes
> shall be treated as a single slash. The interpretation of the pathname
> is described in pathname resolution in 2.2.2.104.  [POSIX.1 {8}]
> 
> 
> 
> Or :
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/xrat/xbd_chap04.html
> (chapter : Pathname Resolution)
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Vincent