Re: [Bug-cpio] directory permissions and ownership lost in 2.9

[Ladislav Michnovič]

Hello.

This problem was announced two months ago, see this email:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-cpio-2.9%3A-sets-unexpected-%28wrong-%29-file-owner-UID-td15689526.html

There is also attached patch, but patched cpio pass only
two tests:
cpio-dir-perm-depth, cpio-dir-perm-no-depth

but this one still shows the bug:
cpio-dir-perm-passthrough.

 Regards Ladislav.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Albert Y. C. Lai <address@hidden> wrote:
> Using cpio 2.9 and the traditional "find . -depth" (e.g., as in the cpio
> tutorial), directory permissions and ownerships are not set properly when
> the directory in question is non-empty.
>
>  I have tried both cpio 2.9 distributed by Ubuntu 8.04 beta and the tarball
> from http://www.gnu.org/software/cpio/ .
>
>
>  Example 1: Given the current directory has:
>
>  .:
>  total 0
>  drwxrws--T 2 daemon backup 72 2008-04-10 00:38 d
>
>  ./d:
>  total 0
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 daemon backup 0 2008-04-10 00:38 hello
>
>  Now execute these as root:
>
>  mkdir ../tgt
>  find . -depth | cpio -pmd ../tgt
>  ls -lR ../tgt
>
>  ../tgt:
>  total 0
>  drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 72 2008-04-10 00:38 d
>
>  ../tgt/d:
>  total 0
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 daemon backup 0 2008-04-10 00:38 hello
>
>
>  Example 2: Given the current directory has:
>
>  .:
>  total 0
>  drwxr-xr-x 2 trebla trebla 72 2008-04-10 00:39 d
>
>  ./d:
>  total 0
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 trebla trebla 0 2008-04-10 00:39 hello
>
>  Now execute these as user trebla:
>
>  umask 077
>  mkdir ../tgt
>  find . -depth | cpio -pmd ../tgt
>  ls -lR ../tgt
>
>  ../tgt:
>  total 0
>  drwx------ 2 trebla trebla 72 2008-04-10 00:40 d
>
>  ../tgt/d:
>  total 0
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 trebla trebla 0 2008-04-10 00:39 hello
>
>
>  Similar behaviour if you go through "cpio -o | (cd ../tgt; cpio -idm)". In
> fact you can verify that the directory flags are stored into the archive
> file alright; the problem is during extraction.
>
>  If you change "find . -depth" to "find .", omitting "-depth", the problem
> goes away.
>
>  While umask and other process defaults are honoured when directories are
> not explicitly listed, which is great, when they are explicitly listed with
> flags (except in a delayed order) the flags are still ignored, which is not
> great IMO. Yes, I can omit "-depth" and be done, but the original behaviour
> has been relied upon for decades. It certainly caught me off-guard when I
> used cpio 2.9 (and the tradition find formula) to clone a whole system and
> then found out the clone broke.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Bug-cpio mailing list
>  address@hidden
>  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cpio
>