DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-01
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2008-01
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: renaming the current working directory (cwd)

From: Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:37:36 +0000

Vincent Stemen wrote:
On 2008-01-12, Bill Hacker <wbh@conducive.org> wrote:
Vincent wrote:

If my cwd gets renamed by another process, it disappears out from under

To reproduce:

$ mkdir zzz1
$ cd zzz1

In another shell:

$ mv zzz1 zzz2

Back in the first shell:

$ ls
ls: .: No such file or directory
$ cd ..
cd: no such file or directory: ..

This seems to be unique to Dragonfly. I tested on FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux and, it does not affect the shell that was in the directory because it was never deleted. I verified, in Dragonfly, that the inode number of the directory did not change after being renamed.

Is this a bug or a feature?

I am running DragonflyBSD 1.10.1-RELEASE

A misunderstanding, perhaps...

On FreeBSD, OS X or OpenBSD the more common action is an rm -Rf - which results in the original shell looking at a no-longer-valid dirtree, and saying so when you try to do an ls ... or whatever. 'no such file or directory'.

My test was to add to your test - above - 'touch fudge' while in the dirtree, then rm -Rf the dirtree from a different shell and try to ls or 'touch fudge2' from the shell still in the now-removed dirtree.

As expected 'no such file or directory' was returned.

Likewise trying to backstep with 'cd ..' as the point of reference is lost. Needs a specific cd /path/to/whatever/still-exists

Then I tried an 'mv' with the 'fudge' file in place...

OS X 10.3.9, OpenBSd 4.2, FreeBSD 6.2 are the same as DFLY.

The original shell still shows in prompt that it is in the OLD dirtree and still sees the file 'fudge'.

Yes, this is what I expected to get and what I do get on every other system. My FreeBSD test was also on version 6.2. But it behaves as if the directory was removed on Dragonfly. Are you sure you tested on Dragonfly as well?

No - I specifically did NOT test on Dragonfly... (as you had already done so). I just happened to have all three of the others running at the time. I *can* add another HDD and check DFLY, but trust you are not inventing this...


If so, what version? I also tested today on our
other Dragonfly machine running Dragonfly 1.8.0-RELEASE and got the same
results. The directory disappears on the original shell.

As above it, *should* disappear *unless* the change used hardlinks.

I did another test today.  I renamed the directory back to the original
name in the second shell and it reappeared in the original shell.
Unlike the other Unix systems, the shell on Dragonfly seems to require
the name to stay the same, not just the inode.  I also verified it was
not a characteristic of the specific shell.  I got the same behavior in
Zshell as well as sh.

shell1 $ mkdir zzz shell1 $ cd zzz shell1 $ touch fudge shell1 $ ll total 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 vince vince - 0 Jan 12 13:18 fudge

shell2 $ mv zzz zzz2

shell1 $ ll
ls: .: No such file or directory

shell2 $ mv zzz2 zzz

shell1 $ ll
total 0
-rw-r--r--  1 vince  vince  - 0 Jan 12 13:18 fudge

Again - trusting your tests - that 'hints' to me that Dragonfly has not used (the classical) hardlink approach - wherein the information is not destroyed until the 'last known' consumer of it has relinquished it.

I could be wrong about that - plus - I'm not sure I would class it as a 'bug' even if true.

Note that to the best of my recollection, DOS, Win, OS/2, and many other non-Unix OS'en would also be no longer able to find the path or file once 'rename' 'ed OR deleted by another's action.

OTOH - depending on which fs was in use, several of those would have prevented the second shell from doing so in the first place because another 'consumer' had it 'open'. Ergo, the behaviour can be fs-specific as well as OS-specific.

Any other shell does not. It sees them in the new dirtree. NB: This OS X is using UFS, not hfs

What I believe you are seeing is neither bug nor 'feature' - just a normal characteristic of hardlinks, which mv will use when possible.

Your shell that sits 'IN' the mv'ed dirtree has it 'open'. Once you move off of it, howver, that link is eaten and you cannot go back.



And therein may lie the key.

First impression is that an OS/fs combination should *either* 'track' the change made by others - or prevent such chasnges.

Yet 'rm' and 'mv' already behave differently on Unix and FFS/UFS.

Which one is 'right' depends on whether the goal is consistency with other *nix or consistency between 'rm' and 'mv'.

Personally, I am au fait with DragonFly doing it a different way than other *nix - so long as that is the intent and 'fits' the rest of the model. DragonFly tends to be both very well planned, and to tkae cognizance that a good deal of 'legacy land' has long been in need of cleanup.

One would expect that an *unplanned* change from 'legacy' could break a whole host of other things expected by convention - but there is scant evidence that it has done so to-date.

I'll cite an unrelated example of 'differences':

- On FreeBSD one can open several shells, do a pkg_add in each of them and watch them run simultaneously. Likewise a 'make'.

- On OpenBSD, the second and subsequent commands are told that the pkg_db is already open & locked. Each is then held until the first finishes, then run one-at-a-time until all are done.

The OpenBSD approach may take more wall-clock time to complete. But it is arguably less likely to get tangled in its own underwear (dirtrees, libs and other dependencies & their versions).

AND/OPR needs simpler code to prevent that.

AND/OR - FreeBSD needs more complex code to handle that sort of activity w/o harm.

So long as neither one breaks, I'm agnostic as to how they accomplish that.

If all 4 *BSD's were identical, 3 would be superfluous ...


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]