We should overwrite the size when realsize has not been specified, not
just when our size exceeds what's in st_size.
Attached another attempt.
Paul, what do you think?
Thanks, Pavel
On 02/21/13 05:37, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Paul, what do you think?
Sorry, I've lost context. Is there a test case illustrating
the bug that this fixes?
On Thu, 2013-02-21 at 09:26 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 02/21/13 05:37, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Paul, what do you think?
Sorry, I've lost context. Is there a test case illustrating
the bug that this fixes?
Just prepare sparse file of effective size 8GB and try to create --posix
tarball
Hmm, this doesn't feel right. Can't the sparse size be greater than
the real size, in some (unusual) cases?
Really don't know, could you point me somewhere to make me able to test
this?
We should overwrite the size when realsize has not been specified, not
just when our size exceeds what's
Hi Paul,
Thanks for catching that bug. We don't yet have a facility
for large test cases, so I guess we can put that on the todo list.
I agree (this is probably about paxutils?).
Your patch doesn't feel quite right, as there's a similar
issue in pax_dump_header_0, and also there's a
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:17 +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for catching that bug. We don't yet have a facility
for large test cases, so I guess we can put that on the todo list.
I agree (this is probably about paxutils?).
Your patch doesn't feel quite right, as there's
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 14:59 +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 10:17 +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for catching that bug. We don't yet have a facility
for large test cases, so I guess we can put that on the todo list.
I agree (this is probably about
On 01/28/13 08:40, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
+ if (u st-stat.st_size)
+ /* Do *not* overwrite stat.st_size when it has been set by
+GNU.sparse.realsize (func sparse_size_decoder) already. */
+ st-stat.st_size = u;
Hmm, this doesn't feel right. Can't the sparse size be
Thanks for catching that bug. We don't yet have a facility
for large test cases, so I guess we can put that on the todo list.
Your patch doesn't feel quite right, as there's a similar
issue in pax_dump_header_0, and also there's a problem if
the shrunken size is less than 8 GiB but the real size
Hi, I'm attaching patch for bug in tar for --posix --sparse options.
Could you please consider applying?
Reproduce:
1. Create sparse file of shrunken size (real data) = 8^11 bytes.
2. tar --posix --sparse -cf /dev/null ThatBigFile
3. Tar fails with:
tar: value [BIG_NUMBER] out of
10 matches
Mail list logo
