Vista's Fake Symlink Support


Recommended Posts

Symlinks haven't really been added to Windows Vista. It seems that the only calls to the symlink API Windows Vista occur during the creation of such files or when accessing them from Windows Explorer. What this means is, you can't access symlinks from another OS. To be fair, you probably didn't expect to be able to dual-boot into XP and suddenly have access to the symlinks you created on the Vista partition earlier that day. But then again, you probably expected to be able to access these symlinks through a network share/UNC path or as files on a webserver - But you can't!

Article: Vista Symlinks Revisited...

Article 2: Vista Get's Symlinks - Read it for info on what Symlinks are

Source: NeoSmart Technologies

Edited by Computer Guru
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/513824-vistas-fake-symlink-support/
Share on other sites

Symlinks

This isn't as complete an explanation as I'd like to give. I'll probably fix this as soon as final exams are over here at MIT (I'm an undergraduate).

A symlink is a UNIX thing. I think there's a similar concept on Macintoshes called an "alias". (Mac people, please fill me in on this, or correct me.) Basically, it's a filename that has associated with it a string rather than the contents of a file. This string is the name of another file to which the symlink points. If you try to read the symlink, you see the file-to-which-is-pointed-by-the-string. You can make symlinks to anything that is in a UNIX filesystem, including regular files and directories. I use them a lot to make links from one place in my home directory to others places, especially when people might look in more than one place to find a bit of information or a file they're trying to find.

You create symbolic links with the command

Gooooooogle is your friend :)

Lol guys, read the article.

In the first and second paragraphs alone there are 2 links to the original NeoSmart article discussing Symlinks in Windows Vista... hence the title "Revisited"

Here's the first article: http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/278

I'll update the original post.

Anyway, I for one am majorly PO'd that such an important feature was faked in Windows Vista.

Thats abit stupid (Well Done Microsoft)...This going to mean symlinks created in XP will not work within Vista? It kinda sounds like it.

Looks like they Droped something without publishing it (Keeping it a secret)

Not exactly. You never could create Symlinks in XP, so it was a big deal when Vista shipped with Symlink support. Then it turns out that Vista doesn't have real symlinks, as in they're not a part of the filesystem and it doesn't support "bridging" to symlinks so you can access them from a non-Vista workstation like you can with Linux.

It also means that Microsoft won't support symlinks in webservers too.. Great going! /sarcasm

isnt that just a short cut?

Sort of. But the shortcuts Windows puts in are recognized and processed only by Explorer (to my understanding - there may be one or two other things that recognize them). A third party app with a save/load dialog will not read them, and just see a ".lnk" file.

Thats abit stupid (Well Done Microsoft)...This going to mean symlinks created in XP will not work within Vista? It kinda sounds like it.

Looks like they Droped something without publishing it (Keeping it a secret)

Symlinks aren't even supported in XP. :p

Anyway, too bad this sounds more like a hack than anything else then. Things like no UNC path support is especially bad.

And yes, symbolic links are like shortcuts, just that instead of the shortcut, to the user it's supposed to be a real file system-level link to the destination, not a .lnk file with information inside it describing what it points to, with all the disadvantages that has. (a third party app may need to parse the information in the .lnk file if not having access to the Windows API)

Edited by Jugalator
I don't know, but it looks like you are the only one talking of this... even the Wiki say only your site... *Yawn*

Anything else?

Yeah, NeoSmart Technologies is always on top of things :D

Here're a couple more links if you really want to know:

MS: http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng/archive/2006/04/15/576568.aspx

Computer Zen: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MoreOnVistaReparsePoints.aspx

{I have no idea why he calls them reparse points though}

It's fully documented in our first post, and you can try it for yourself and see.

mklink on vista, then open up XP/2k/2k3 and see how it doesn't work.

I can use ln on my Fedora and access it via a UNC path from Vista, XP, Mac, ROS, and SkyOS just to name a few - and of course it works on the webserver as well. My entire website used to be (before I switched to Windows) run off a symlink'd directory.

I guess you'll just have to trust NeoSmart if you can't test it for yourself :D

i concur.

doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone including myself..

That's because you haven't tried to access symlinks from another OS (or haven't even used symlinks yet) and/or don't care about cross compatibility.

You probably aren't running a Longhorn-Powered webserver, nor do you have Linux, Mac, and Windows one hard drive on 3 different machines....

.lnk files are basically just serialized PIDLs - a Windows Shell structure.

Symlinks in Vista are "real" symlinks. Contrary to this post's claim - you can traverse into a symlink'd directory from the command console, or via a network share. They probably ACL'd them wrong or something.

I don't know how they look or work to other operating systems - but that's more an issue with the other OS's support of NTFS 6, and not Vista.

Edited by Brandon Live

XP doesn't know how to interpret symlinks. If you make a hard link (directory junction -- also available via the mklink command) it works just fine from XP. As the article says, XP doesn't know how to read symlinks, but Vista does. What you have here is not a problem with the technology, but a problem with the client being able to understand what's being presented to it.

Having said that, I fail to see what the real problem is. Unless you're really "walking" the file system of remote Vista/Longhorn systems, most symlink benefits are realized through the localized applications; IIS for example.

@Brandon:

Not so. UNC File Shares are not FS-specific. It's a standard - that's why non-NTFS supporting OSes like Unix can access XP NTFS drives via UNC paths. It's because XP on-the-fly translates files and paths into the standard Samba platform.

Also, if what you say is true, then you couldn't access Linux symlinks via UNC from XP/2k - but you can. Clearly, Vista is to blame here.

mram: True. But just like I said, it doesn't *have* to understand it, no one asked Vista to send out the info as a non-UNC-compliant symlink. MS should realize that not all networked PCs will be running Windows Vista, but since when has MS cared about compatibility?

A good example of a pretty widely-used symlink (for those who don't quite understand the idea) is the www folder on your Linux-based web server. It's actually a symlink to the public_html folder, although I'm not sure of this is ALWAYS the case (any web server I've seen has it though).

My question is, are the Linux symlinks you're browsing in XP off of a currently-running computer through a network? If so, then the symlink information is probably being sent from Linux itself, and not being truly read by XP. I could be completely off though, as I've got good but limited experience with *nix and its filesystems.

according to the sysinternals guy, Windows 2000 and up have supported symbolic links. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysintern...k/Junction.mspx

Win2000 and up supports directory symbolic links and hard links for files, but not symbolic links for files, until Vista.

Junctions and Hard Links are supported by 2K, XP, 2K3 and Vista but only Vista will recognize a smybolic link, cause it's new to Windows Vista.

Junctions = Directory (can exist on another partition)

Hard Link = File (Can only exist on the same partition)

Hard Links can be used in Windows to have a file appear in 5 different folders but only take up the hard drive space in one folder.

Junctions can be used exactly like unix server style public_html and the www folder. This is useful if you need a folder like Document and Settings to appear on the C drive but your running out of room so you can move the entire folder to another partition or drive.

Junctions created in XP will be recognize by other Windows version that support it.

The symlink support is hardly a hack or faked. The way CreateSymbolicLink works is to call FSCTL_SET_REPARSE_POINT, which is how existing juntion points are created. All redirection would be handled at the kernel level, in a transparent manner.

I would curious to know if junction points are broken when accessing them via Samba from Linux, since they would use the same code path as the new symlinks. If they are not broken, I wonder if the Samba Linux implementation has code to handle junction points.

Edited by Andareed

Our article made OSNews, read the excelllent learned comments made at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=16524 for an answer to your question, Andareed (ignoring the first BS reply, that guy has no idea what he's talking about as later replies prove).

@Brandon:

Not so. UNC File Shares are not FS-specific. It's a standard - that's why non-NTFS supporting OSes like Unix can access XP NTFS drives via UNC paths. It's because XP on-the-fly translates files and paths into the standard Samba platform.

I think you're confused. "Samba" is a Unix implementation of SMB - the Microsoft standard for network sharing. "Samba" is not perfect, and does not necessarily support all the features present in the Vista version of SMB.

Also, if what you say is true, then you couldn't access Linux symlinks via UNC from XP/2k - but you can. Clearly, Vista is to blame here.

That's probably something done by the Samba server running on the Linux system, not by Explorer.

mram: True. But just like I said, it doesn't *have* to understand it, no one asked Vista to send out the info as a non-UNC-compliant symlink. MS should realize that not all networked PCs will be running Windows Vista, but since when has MS cared about compatibility?

How can it be "non-UNC-compliant"? SMB is a Microsoft technology. It sounds like it's Samba that you should be blaming, no?

The answer to my question is that junctions are always resolved/redirected on the server side, whereas symlinks need to be configured to have this behaviour. The following info was copy/pasted from a comment at OSNews.

Q: So then, what is the difference between a shortcut and the links?

A: A shortcut is a file implemented by Shell32 via the IShellLink interface. These files tell shell to jump to a different location. A symbolic link is implemented under the filesystem API, so regular applications calling CreateFile get the benefit of links without needing to implement their own code, as they would with IShellLink.

Q: What is the difference between a junction point, and a directory symlink?

A: Junctions and directory symlinks have subtly different semantics. For example, symbolic links are always evaluated on the client in a network scenario, whereas junctions are evaluated on the server. Also, ACLs are handled differently too. However, they are broadly similar.

Q: Should I be able to access a symlinked folder via the network?

A: Yes, remember that the client and the server needs to be Vista. By default only local to local links are turned on. You would need to enable the Local to Remote symlinks through the policy editor.

https://blogs.technet.com/filecab/articles/457811.aspx

Checking the Group Policy Editor in Vista (gpedit.msc) as advised above yields the following option under Computer Configuration | Administrative Templates | System | NTFS File System:

Selectively allow the evaluation of a symbolic link

o Not Configured (Default)

o Enabled

o Disabled

[] Local Link to Local Target

[] Local Link to a Remote Target

[] Remote Link to a Remote Target

[] Remote Link to a Local Target

Explaination:

Symbolic links can introduce vulnerabilities in certain applications. To mitigate this issue, you can selectively enable or disable the evaluation of these types of symbolic links:

Local Link to a Local Target

Local Link to a Remote Target

Remote Link to Remote Target

Remote Link to Local Target

For further information please refer to the Windows Help section

NOTE: If this policy is Disabled or Not Configured, local administrators may select the types of symbolic links to be evaluated.

mram: True. But just like I said, it doesn't *have* to understand it, no one asked Vista to send out the info as a non-UNC-compliant symlink. MS should realize that not all networked PCs will be running Windows Vista, but since when has MS cared about compatibility?

UNC covers how to name things and has nothing to do with symlinks. A "UNC compliant" application would just mean that it understands and supports paths of the form \\computername\sharedfolder\resource.

I think you're confused. "Samba" is a Unix implementation of SMB - the Microsoft standard for network sharing. "Samba" is not perfect, and does not necessarily support all the features present in the Vista version of SMB.

That's probably something done by the Samba server running on the Linux system, not by Explorer.

How can it be "non-UNC-compliant"? SMB is a Microsoft technology. It sounds like it's Samba that you should be blaming, no?

My bad. I meant SMB.

Not at all though, the proof being that Vista symlinks aren't accessible even from Windows XP via UNC/Network shares.

However, Vista/XP can both access Symlink'd files and folders in SMB-compliant *nix network shares.

The SMB standard as published by Microsoft themselves requires that the operating system itself intercept and translate calls to non-physical (softlink) paths - something that Vista doesn't comply with, and the reason why this is a fake.

;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!