Ted Unangst wrote on Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:37:52AM -0500:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
>> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
>> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs.
> Just
Hi Ted,
Ted Unangst wrote on Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 10:37:52AM -0500:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
>> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
>> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for
On Sun, Jan 27 2019 10:37:52 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
> > default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
> > i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs.
>
> Just
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> If people here agree with the general direction of making -S the
> default and removing the fragile non-S mode (see the patch below),
> i'll run a full make build and make release and then ask for OKs.
Just checking we didn't forget about this. Seems the right thing to do.
On Wed, Jan 16 2019 11:00:04 +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Lauri Tirkkonen wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:13:09PM +0200:
>
> > Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
> > first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
> > O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
> >
> >
Hi,
Lauri Tirkkonen wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 08:13:09PM +0200:
> Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
> first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
> O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
>
> Normally this would not be a problem,
A race condition is almost always
On Mon, Jan 07 2019 14:27:29 -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> The main difference with -S is that you end up with two copies of
> the target file on disk for a short period of time. That was a
> bigger deal back when -S was added. Today, it probably doesn't
> matter.
so, how about this patch
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 22:55:54 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> >
> > > Oooh, that short period can be the time between disk flushes (30s?)
> > > with softupdates. I think that's one of the scenarios where you
> > > can run out of disk space if
Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 22:55:54 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> > Oooh, that short period can be the time between disk flushes (30s?)
> > with softupdates. I think that's one of the scenarios where you
> > can run out of disk space if you have softupdates enabled.
>
On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 22:55:54 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Oooh, that short period can be the time between disk flushes (30s?)
> with softupdates. I think that's one of the scenarios where you
> can run out of disk space if you have softupdates enabled.
Yes, I think I've had that happen
On 2019-01-07, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
> The main difference with -S is that you end up with two copies of
> the target file on disk for a short period of time.
Oooh, that short period can be the time between disk flushes (30s?)
with softupdates. I think that's one of the scenarios where you
On Mon, Jan 07 2019 16:32:31 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > This doubles the number of synchronous
> > > file operations.
> >
> > Does it? Without safecopy, the operations performed are:
> >
> > unlink(targetfile);
> > open(targetfile, O_CREAT|O_EXCL);
> > write();
> > fchmod();
Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07 2019 15:48:25 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> > > Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
> > > first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
> > > O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
> >
> > > The below diff
The main difference with -S is that you end up with two copies of
the target file on disk for a short period of time. That was a
bigger deal back when -S was added. Today, it probably doesn't
matter.
- todd
On Mon, Jan 07 2019 15:48:25 -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> > Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
> > first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
> > O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
>
> > The below diff essentially removes the -S option and
Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
> first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
> O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
> The below diff essentially removes the -S option and makes install
> always use temp files (ie. -S is always on),
On Mon, Jan 07 2019 20:13:09 +0200, Lauri Tirkkonen wrote:
> @@ -128,9 +127,6 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> case 'p':
> docompare = dopreserve = 1;
> break;
> - case 'S':
> - safecopy = 1;
> -
Hi, it seems install(1) has a race condition: in create_newfile, it
first unlinks the target file and then tries to open it with
O_CREAT|O_EXCL.
Normally this would not be a problem, but I actually ran into this when
parallel building gcc 6.4.0 (on another OS, but we use OpenBSD
install(1)): they
18 matches
Mail list logo
