Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Bas Wijnen wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:02:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I was trying to use gnucash over sshfs, to allow several machines to handle the same file. It complained that it was unable to get a lock, and so couldn't prevent simultaneous writes. This was no problem, because there isn't another person working on them. For the rest, everything seemed to work fine. However, when trying to reopen the file, I found that it had not been written, but instead it was deleted. So not only did I lose the work of the session, but it actually deleted my previous work as well. Are you sure this isn't a bug in sshfs? No, I'm not sure about that. But from gnucash's behaviour, it seems that sshfs doesn't support locking (which I suppose is a known missing feature, but I didn't check), and gnucash handles that situation very badly. I've just posted a fix for this bug to the upstream bug tracker. See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549595 for further details. Regards Micha -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFItu+/WN0/4pnhQbQRAtESAKCuuoTxKMlPvHVl2MOWD57UMabAOACgks78 pEeQKZd8yfZzG27gJ4auBzU= =WMsf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 20:34 +0200, Micha Lenk wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Bas Wijnen wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:02:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I was trying to use gnucash over sshfs, to allow several machines to handle the same file. It complained that it was unable to get a lock, and so couldn't prevent simultaneous writes. This was no problem, because there isn't another person working on them. For the rest, everything seemed to work fine. However, when trying to reopen the file, I found that it had not been written, but instead it was deleted. So not only did I lose the work of the session, but it actually deleted my previous work as well. Are you sure this isn't a bug in sshfs? No, I'm not sure about that. But from gnucash's behaviour, it seems that sshfs doesn't support locking (which I suppose is a known missing feature, but I didn't check), and gnucash handles that situation very badly. Micha's got the gnucash fix, which I'll upload to Debian too. But also, there is most certainly an sshfs bug here. It has no business whatsoever returning ENOSYS in response to a link call. There are far better error codes to return. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: The logic expressed in the #gnucash discussion is bogus. Errors like ENLNK or EMLNK would also prevent link but not prevent copying. There is no harm in at least trying copying if EROFS comes in, and the code shouldn't assume that every error on link will be an error on copying. I totally agree, especially on not assuming errors without even giving it a try. But in the end it's upstream who decides what the code looks like and which patch makes it into SVN. Without the patch the code was even more broken because (!err_ret) with (err_ret = ENOSYS 0) equals FALSE, thus gnc_int_link_or_make_backup() previously did (awfully broken) *not* return FALSE in this case. So at least the patch (the part related to copy_success) will result in gnc_int_link_or_make_backup() returning FALSE in case *both* link() and copy_file() didn't succeed. Hence the change is definitely enough gain to fix this bug. Regards Micha -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFItwlmWN0/4pnhQbQRAgDpAKCAc+CwV2r1fjjw7Xn5sMkeOhvqqgCdEX4P KOzOdJvhhiZ5R9+UxDzbdRI= =pAVz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
The logic expressed in the #gnucash discussion is bogus. Errors like ENLNK or EMLNK would also prevent link but not prevent copying. There is no harm in at least trying copying if EROFS comes in, and the code shouldn't assume that every error on link will be an error on copying. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Thomas, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: But also, there is most certainly an sshfs bug here. It has no business whatsoever returning ENOSYS in response to a link call. I tried to figure out who is doing wrong here. If at all it's the fault of fuse, who sets the default return code ENOSYS for all unset (i.e. unimplemented) function pointers in fuse_operations -- the sshfs simply does not implement a link() function. A different error code for link() wouldn't be that a big deal: If I understand the fuse code correctly it is sufficient to check for an ENOSYS in kernel/dir.c at the end of the fuse_link() function and replace it by the desired one. But... There are far better error codes to return. ... what error codes listed in the link(2) manpage do you think of? The best one that comes to my mind is EPERM: The filesystem containing oldpath and newpath does not support the creation of hard links. But, sorry, I will stop here. If you think this should be reported to the fuse package, go ahead, clone this bug and reassign the cloned bug to fuse. For now I'm just comfortable with having a fix for Gnucash. Regards Micha -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFItxsXWN0/4pnhQbQRAhY6AJ92dljsm6JCOvowVhZwK2ReeBDG8QCg4zUd 32oBx9qb5bI28AP+rVow0WU= =7Caw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 23:39 +0200, Micha Lenk wrote: There are far better error codes to return. ... what error codes listed in the link(2) manpage do you think of? The best one that comes to my mind is EPERM: The filesystem containing oldpath and newpath does not support the creation of hard links. That is surely correct. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
Package: gnucash Version: 2.2.6-1 Severity: grave Justification: causes data loss I was trying to use gnucash over sshfs, to allow several machines to handle the same file. It complained that it was unable to get a lock, and so couldn't prevent simultaneous writes. This was no problem, because there isn't another person working on them. For the rest, everything seemed to work fine. However, when trying to reopen the file, I found that it had not been written, but instead it was deleted. So not only did I lose the work of the session, but it actually deleted my previous work as well. I tried creating a new file, which also complains about the lock file, but seems to work fine otherwise, but it also doesn't create the file. This would have been a critical issue (causes serious data loss), except that gnucash writes loads of log and backup files, so normally most of the work will not actually be lost. As a quick fix, it would be acceptable to turn the lock warning into an error. Thanks, Bas Wijnen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 forwarded 496807 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549595 thanks Hi Bas, thank you for your feedback on Gnucash. I have forwarded your report to the upstream bug tracker as http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549595 Regards Micha -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFItXzCWN0/4pnhQbQRAiKrAJ9UwCF+zvVF7T2e2WIVlKhG/n5BPACfTC74 GpT7oBeAcLVsN96/1ihqrD8= =A28K -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 17:46 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: Package: gnucash Version: 2.2.6-1 Severity: grave Justification: causes data loss I was trying to use gnucash over sshfs, to allow several machines to handle the same file. It complained that it was unable to get a lock, and so couldn't prevent simultaneous writes. This was no problem, because there isn't another person working on them. For the rest, everything seemed to work fine. However, when trying to reopen the file, I found that it had not been written, but instead it was deleted. So not only did I lose the work of the session, but it actually deleted my previous work as well. Are you sure this isn't a bug in sshfs? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#496807: gnucash: silently removes main files while trying to save without lock
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:02:56PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I was trying to use gnucash over sshfs, to allow several machines to handle the same file. It complained that it was unable to get a lock, and so couldn't prevent simultaneous writes. This was no problem, because there isn't another person working on them. For the rest, everything seemed to work fine. However, when trying to reopen the file, I found that it had not been written, but instead it was deleted. So not only did I lose the work of the session, but it actually deleted my previous work as well. Are you sure this isn't a bug in sshfs? No, I'm not sure about that. But from gnucash's behaviour, it seems that sshfs doesn't support locking (which I suppose is a known missing feature, but I didn't check), and gnucash handles that situation very badly. It is possible that the entire problem is with sshfs. More testing would be needed to find that out, either with trying to lock files on sshfs, or with gnucash on other filesystems which don't support locking. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
