bpo-37612: always call linkat() from os.link(), if available #14843
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The issue with link() is that POSIX does not define its behavior regarding symbolic links: "If path1 names a symbolic link, it is implementation-defined whether link() follows the symbolic link, or creates a new link to the symbolic link itself." And it is indeed implemented differently on Linux and NetBSD.
|
As I understand it from your bpo report, the issue is that the behavior of In particular the actual behavior on such platforms makes That sounds like a good fix to me! Would you add a test for it? See test_os.py, or perhaps test_posix.py if the test doesn't make sense to run on Windows. |
|
I've had a go at adding the test in #24997. |
|
The following commit authors need to sign the Contributor License Agreement: |
|
Fixed by #132517. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The issue with link() is, that POSIX does not define its behavior regarding symbolic links:
"If path1 names a symbolic link, it is implementation-defined whether link() follows the symbolic link, or creates a new link to the symbolic link itself."
And it is indeed implemented differently on e.g. Linux and NetBSD. So, it makes no sense to call link(), where linkat() is available.
https://bugs.python.org/issue37612