• 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓼@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    They aren’t symbolic links. They’re closer to hard links, IIRC, in that they share the inode with other file paths.

    ofc /proc isn’t a “real” file system so the metaphors break down a little; it’s not backed by disk, it’s a view into the kernel’s process information exposed as a file system

    • trem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Just to kind of confirm this:

      ls -l does not show them like hard links, but rather like soft/symbolic links.

      But when I do tail -f /path/to/file.txt on a file (to keep it open in a process) and then delete the file, I get this output in ls -l:

      3 -> '/path/to/file.txt (deleted)'
      

      The 3 seems to just be an incrementing number for each file opened by the process. And then, well, obviously the file isn’t now called “file.txt (deleted)”. That is just a name the kernel makes up when ls -l asks it what’s in that directory.

      So, presumably the kernel keeps a separate copy of that file in memory until the process closes the file or is terminated. And then exposes it through this pseudo-softlink rather than making use of hardlinks.

      • korthrun@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The 3 seems to just be an incrementing number for each file opened by the process.

        FWIW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_descriptor#file_descriptor_table

        If you throw an strace on a process that interacts with the filesystem you’ll see that stuff like open() returns a file descriptor and stuff like read() takes a file descriptor as an argument.

        These are also generally the numbers you’re using when you do I/O redirection in your shell with stuff like 2>&1 or exec 5< ./some_file.txt

    • sik0fewl@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Ya, the description sounds more like a hard link, but that also doesn’t work, since the executable is obviously not stored on /proc.

      Your explanation makes sense, thanks.