[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?

From: Svante Signell
Subject: Re: fakeroot-hurd bug or not?
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:07:56 +0200

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 19:08 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Wed 23 Sep 2015 15:45:13 +0200, a écrit :
> > This test fails with fakeroot-hurd on Hurd due to that /non
> > -existant is
> > writable for faked nodes according to:
> No.  Check what happens in the testcase again.  It fails due to /
> being announced as writable by fakeroot (see the recursive call to
> check_directory in the ENOENT case).

Sorry, I meant / is writable, the file attempted to create is /non

> > running it as real root of course returns *is_writable=1 and
> > errno="No
> > such file or directory" on both Linux and Hurd.
> Take care that the errno value should not be looked at when the
> function
> succeeded. It may be just a leftover from a previous call, or even
> something else, it's really undefined.

Yes, errno is not interesting when access(2) succeeds. Sorry again for
not being clear to omit errno in the text for that case. Of course I
meant what you just wrote :)

> > Maybe even the tests should not be run under fakeroot at all as is
> > done now with fakeroot debian/rules binary?
> That is very questionable, yes.  Checks should be done in the build
> target, not in the binary target.  Running tests in fakeroot does not
> make much sense to me.

Seems like dh does this by default now, see debian/rules. From the
build log
  debian/rules build
make: 'build' is up to date.
 fakeroot debian/rules binary
dh binary --with autoreconf
 make -j1 check

> All that being said, we should probably not let the programs inside
> fakeroot believe they can write to / (because they may then try to,
> while they can't actually).
> > The attached patch makes the behaviour the same as on Linux and
> > fakeroot-tcp. The question is which behaviour is the expected one.
> It is indeed tempting do do this change.
> I'm almost believing it's the right thing to do, I'm just afraid of
> corner cases.  What reassures me is that in both attempt_mkfile and
> attempt_chmod, we always add RUSR and WUSR permissions on the real
> node (and XUSR when it makes sense), and so for files created inside
> the fakeroot session (i.e. those which have FAKE_MODE, for which we
> do change the code here), the behavior will be the same in the end.
> The only exception is /, which does have FAKE_MODE set in main(), but
> already exists and shouldn't be made writable.  AIUI, this is exactly
> where your proposed change actually change a behavior, and is
> precisely
> what you intended to do.
> Could somebody else double-check my reasoning is correct?
> (we have to be careful with these permissions, we need to converge to
> something that just does has the right behavior in all cases)
> Perhaps for some reason it'd even fix the issues I reported on Mon, 7
> Sep 2015 22:03:43 +0200, for instance the gpsd experimental package,
> Svante, could you check?

Will do, bbl!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]