Subject: Re: renaming /boot to /boot_
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 09/29/1999 23:50:51
Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Chris G. Demetriou writes:
> >"approximately the same as for ffs." it's the same directory
> >lookup/symlink handling goop in both.
> Directory lookup is needed regardless, and #ifdefing away symlink
> support sounds reasonable to me: dont use symlinks to 2nd-stage
> bootblocsk (installboot could check for that).
I think i meant "directory traversal."
> Is the problem that
> the Alpha LFS bootblock was already so close to the edge of the cliff,
> that looking into a /boot directory directory leaves it teetering on
> the edge?
with _no_ directory traversal, and no symlink handling, the alpha LFS
boot block is approximately:
-r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 7616 Aug 14 17:22 bootxx_lfs
that's out of 7680 max.
Now add to it approximately the difference in sizes I posted in other
e-mail for adding directory traversal (with our without symlink
handling) and it should be obvious where you end up.
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.