ls -i: print consistent inode numbers also for mount points

On most unix- and linux-based kernels, ls -i DIR_CONTAINING_MOUNT_POINT
would print the wrong inode number for any entry that is a mount point.
It would do that by relying on readdir's dirent.d_ino values, while
most readdir implementations return the inode number of the underlying,
inaccessible directory.  Thus, it is not consistent with what you'd
get when applying stat to the same entry.  This bug led to surprising
results like "ls -i" and "ls -i --color" printing different numbers (ls
must usually "stat" a file to colorize its name).  This change makes it
so that on offending systems, ls must stat non-command-line-arguments
for which otherwise it would be able to use "for free" dirent.d_ino
values.  Regardless of this change, ls is already required to stat every
command-line argument.  Note: versions of GNU ls prior to coreutils-6.0
did not perform the invalid optimization, and hence always printed
correct inode numbers.  Thus, for the sake of correctness, ls -i is
forgoing the readdir optimization, for any kernel (including linux!)
with POSIX-nonconforming readdir.  Note that currently, only Cygwin has
been agile enough to conform.

* src/ls.c (RELIABLE_D_INO): Define.
(print_dir): Use it.
For plenty of discussion, see this long thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.coreutils.bugs/14020
This bug was introduced by the 2006-02-26 commit, 33eb3efe:
"In ls, avoid calling stat for --inode (-i), when possible."
* tests/ls/readdir-mountpoint-inode: New test.
* tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Add it.
* tests/ls/stat-vs-dirent: Don't suppress failure of this test,
now that ls -i is fixed.  Though note that it doesn't test well,
since it compares only the always-stat'd command-line arguments.
* NEWS (Bug fixes): Mention it.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/tests/ls/stat-vs-dirent b/tests/ls/stat-vs-dirent
index c1d7ff55a..064ec12ae 100755
--- a/tests/ls/stat-vs-dirent
+++ b/tests/ls/stat-vs-dirent
@@ -49,12 +49,7 @@ while :; do
         The flaw isn't serious for coreutils, but it might break other tools,
         so you should report it to your operating system vendor." 1>&2
 
-      # This test fails too often, and we don't want to be distracted
-      # with reports, since the code that could be affected by the losing
-      # behavior (pwd and getcwd) works around any mismatch.
-      # So do continue to issue the warning, but don't count it as a
-      # real failure.
-      # fail=1
+      fail=1
       break
     fi
   fi