I've seen that bug, but I think our bug was more that dd would exit if it got back a short read from input. So if you did something like this (maybe not exactly, but close):
dd bs=1m | dd bs=10m > f.out You might get only 1mb in f.out. This had to do with skipping disklabels and other such schenanigans. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 8, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Devin Teske <dte...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Problem we had found was: > > Executing dd with a closed stdout and stderr would cause the summary messages > printed at the end to go into the destination output file. > > For example, > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/foo bs=1m count=1 > > Works fine, but the following: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/foo bs=1m count=1 >&- 2>&- > > Will cause the summary statistics of dd to appear in /tmp/foo instead of on > the console. > > The issue is that the summary statistics are send to fd1, which if you close > down stdout and stdin, fd1 is actually the output file since it got the > lowest file descriptor available when open(2) was called on the output file. > > This was never fixed because it was deemed “silly developer, don’t close > stdout and stderr before invoking dd”. > > The argument has been made by Jilles T. that it is generally a bad idea to > close down any of the standard file descriptors because it cannot be > predicted how a particular UNIX utility will react (e.g., in the case of dd, > causing a simple printf(3) to go to an unexpected location). > — > Devin > > >> On Mar 4, 2017, at 8:12 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alf...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> Devin and I found this when we worked together. I think it was due to some >> situation in dd(1) where short reads would exit pre-maturely, however I may >> be mis-remembering. Devin, do you recall the specifics? >> >> >>> On 3/4/17 7:44 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> >>> an interesting point to discuss? is our behaviour in this test right? >>> from: "austin-group mailng list (posix standard discussion)" >>> >>> ------ rest of email is quoted ------- >>> On 5/3/17 5:48 am, Stephane Chazelas wrote: >>> >>> 2017-03-04 13:14:08 +0000, Danny Niu: >>>> Hi all. >>>> >>>> I couldn't remember where I saw it saying, that when reading >>>> from a pipe or a FIFO, the read syscall returns the content of >>>> at most one write call. It's a bit similar to the >>>> message-nondiscard semantics of dear old STREAM. >>>> >>>> Currently, I'm reading through the text to find out a bit >>>> more, and I appreciate a bit of pointer on this. >>> [...] >>> >>> (echo x; echo y) | (sleep 1; dd count=1 2> /dev/null) >>> >>> outputs both x and y in all of Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris in my >>> tests. >>> >>> That a read wouldn't read what's currently in the pipe would be >>> quite surprising. >>> >>> I also wouldn't expect pipes to store the writes as individual >>> separate message but use one buffer. >>> >>> In: >>> >>> ( >>> dd bs=40000 count=1 if=/dev/zero 2> /dev/null >>> echo first through >&2 >>> dd bs=40000 count=1 if=/dev/zero 2> /dev/null >>> echo second through >&2 >>> ) | (sleep 1; dd bs=100000 count=1 2> /dev/null) | wc -c >>> >>> That is where the second write blocks because the pipe is full, >>> the reading dd still reads both writes in Linux and Solaris in >>> my tests (on Solaris (10 on amd64 at least), reduce to 20000 >>> instead of 40000 or both writes would block). >>> >>> On FreeBSD, I get only the first write (using 8000 followed by >>> 10000 for instance). >>> >>> FreeBSD is also the only one of the three where >>> >>> dd bs=1000000 count=1 if=/dev/zero | dd bs=1000000 count=1 | wc -c >>> >>> Doesn't output 1000000. The others schedule both processes back >>> and forth during their write() and read() system call while the >>> pipe is being filled and emptied several times. >>> >> > _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"