[Bug 51059] Incorrect semantics of FILE_OPEN_REPARSE_POINT on Linux

[WineHQ Bugzilla]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51059

--- Comment #4 from Erich E. Hoover <erich.e.hoover at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Erich E. Hoover from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jinoh Kang from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Erich E. Hoover from comment #1)
> > > You are correct that O_SYMLINK is not identical to (O_NOFOLLOW | O_PATH),
> > > but I did some testing of this some time ago and the differences don't
> > > really matter for implementing FILE_OPEN_REPARSE_POINT.
> > ...
> > Or Is it so? I actually based my claim of this behavior being a bug based on
> > Microsoft Docs on CreateFileW:
> 
> It's entirely possible my original test was flawed or I misinterpreted it,
> so I'll double check.  I would have put the symlink test next to the real
> file test, so it's entirely possible that I misread the results.  As you
> have pointed out, it is very easy to fix if that's the case.

Looks like my original test was a mistake, I retested with
FILE_OPEN_REPARSE_POINT on a regular file and the file behaved normally.  I'll
try to put together an update with this and some other fixes as soon as I can.

-- 
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.