https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71005

Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected]
                   |desktop.org                 |
                 CC|                            |[email protected]
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> ---
Background:  No two concurrently running instances of LO must use the same
UserInstallation, or else data corruption can occur.  On a single machine, this
is taken care of by the "OfficeIPC" protocol.  For the case that
UserInstallation is on a file system accessible from multiple machines, this is
taken core of by a .lock file in the UserInstallation.  However, when a LO
instance crashes and leaves behind a stale .lock file, new LO instances (from
other machines, at least) could not start.  Therefore, when a LO instance sees
a potentially stale .lock file written from another machine: (a) if
--nolockcheck is not given, it asks the user whether the file is indeed stale
(and proceeds only if the user confirms it is stale); (b) if --nolockcheck is
given, silently assume the file is indeed stale and proceeds (potentially
causing data corruption if the assumption was false).

The

> // Workaround for automated testing
> ::svt::DocumentLockFile::AllowInteraction( false );

in case of --nolockcheck has been added by
<http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=62ee5e1a752033344c172ad2380a5f1e2492330a>
"INTEGRATION: CWS calcshare2: #i85794# workaround for automated testing" in the
context of <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=85794> "Reimplement
file locking using an additional file."  I see no good reason for that, esp. as
all our (subsequent-)checks each use a dedicated, throwaway UserInstallation
anyway.  So I'm inclined to just remove those two lines (and not add an
additonal --autotest argument as suggested by attachment 88402).

(Whether it is actually good that LO is called with --nolockcheck in
cppuhelper/source/bootstrap.cxx, extensions/source/nsplugin/source/so_main.cxx,
and javaunohelper/com/sun/star/comp/helper/Bootstrap.java, potentially causing
data corruption, is a different matter.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs

Reply via email to