BASH: Finding all hard links to a file in a given directory tree

March 22, 2011

Question: How to find all hard links to one file in a given file and do something with them (count, replace with symbolic links, delete or whatever)? We need to use a find command. But there are some problems with it:

  • We can use -links +1 to find all files, which link count value is bigger than 1 (knowing, that every file in *nix is just a hard link to a given inode, we look for files that have more than one hard link). But that would give us files that have links outside the given directory tree as well.
  • We can use a while loop to check all files found using a -links +1 approach using find with a -samefile switch, but that would be really slow when given a big directory tree.

Solution? We have to find every regular file (-type f) that have more than one hard link (-links +1). Cool, but find will print out those files in a rather random order. We need them sorted - so every link to a given inode would be next to each other. How to do that? find allows printing results not only in a simple way using -print, but gives us a more sophisticated way with -printf. Knowing that we can use -printf "%i %p\n" to print inode in front of the file path, and then use sort to achieve success.

Example code looks like that:

#!/bin/bash
find $1 -type f -links +1 -printf "%i %p\n" | sort | while read a
do
    # $a == currently checked line
    inode=`echo $a | cut -d' ' -f1`
    path=`echo $a | cut -d' ' -f2`
done

Now, if current $inode differs from the one found in previous loop iteration, then we can be sure that we won’t find another link to that file. So, we have to add a little modification - for example, a global variable with last inode, and everything is cool again..

Why while and not for?

Difference is simple, but important. In the case of that loop:

for i in *
do
    # do something
done

whole * lands in the command line. It may seem unimportant, but when there are a lot of files in * it may be a problem - length of a command line is limited after all. Let’s look at the while:

find $1 -print | while read variable
do
    # do something
done

Looks more complicated, but it’s better. Here find result is not passed as a command line argument, but uses a pipeline to send it to while. Knowing, that pipeline length is practically unlimited, we are avoiding the for problem.

See also: