bug#15328: Bug or dubious feature?

[L A Walsh]

On 1/11/2019 1:20 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> tags 15328 notabug
> close 15328
> stop
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On 2013-09-10 3:01 p.m., Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Whatever the problem is, it's not in 'mv'...
> 
> Given the above, and no further comments in 5 years,
> I'm closing this item.

There were further comments but, some
Erik/eric, the cygwin person supporting core utils 
at the time refused to 
allow me to process the bugs through core utils 
before being "ok'd" / triaged by the cygwin interface
person(him).

This was a very serious bug that appeared in several
other areas where "update" conflicted with read-only
settings on sources that caused deletion of data off of
sources that were marked as 'read-only'.

Of course even after telling him how he could reproduce
the bug on linux using the "ignore case" feature on XFS, he
couldn't be bothered.

I also got ignored when mentioning this was related to the
"file changed as we read it" bug that kept resurfacing on
some filesystem that never became stable enough on linux for
a first release.

bug#9089: pipe failure with cat and head of coreutils 6.12

[Paul Eggert]

Assaf Gordon wrote:

If the issue of cat(1) supporting socketpair/ECONNRESET instead of
pipes/EPIPE is still relevant, we can re-open the bug.


'cat' treats EPIPE on pipes the same way it treats ECONNRESET on socket pairs:

$ (trap '' PIPE; cat /usr/bin/emacs) | :
cat: write error: Broken pipe

The difference in observed behavior occurs only because most scripts (rightly) 
don't ignore SIGPIPE. If we change 'cat' to ignore ECONNRESET, for consistency 
we should also change it to ignore EPIPE.


The POSIX spec[1] allows 'write' to send a SIGPIPE and set errno to EPIPE for 
sockets that are no longer connected. I wonder why the Linux kernel doesn't do 
that? It would seem to be more consistent and useful.


[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html