[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: sed suggestion: selinux context based on symlink when using -i

From: Jakub Martisko
Subject: Re: sed suggestion: selinux context based on symlink when using -i
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 14:26:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0

Hi and thank you for your reply, I'll try to provide a
complete patch as soon as I identify the correct entry for
the NEWS file.
As for the --follow-symlinks option - unpatched version
fails at the first grep in the attached test script (and
succeeds at the second one), while the patched version
passes both. I hope this is the expected/wanted behaviour.


On 22.11.2017 17:26, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Jakub Martisko <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 11.1.2017 09:19, Jakub Martisko wrote:
>>> First of all, congratulations and thanks for the GNU sed 4.3
>>> release.
>>> Now to the main topic. There was a suggestion (see the
>>> discussion in [1]) to change how the sed handles the selinux
>>> context when working with symlinked files when using the -i
>>> option. It was suggested that the context should be based on
>>> the link instead of the target file itself. Patch that
>>> changes this behavior was also proposed and is attached to
>>> this message. Any thoughts about this suggestion?
>>> Regards,
>>> Jakub
>>> P.S. I hope that his is a correct list where to post this.
>>> [1]
> Thank you for reporting that and for taking the time to prepare a patch.
> Are you interested in making it a complete patch?
> Since it is a bug fix, the patch should add an entry in the NEWS file.
> Each bug fix also deserves regression tests: tests that fail before
> and succeed after the patch is applied.
> Will this patch have to take into account whether the
> --follow-symlinks command-line option is specified? (haven't looked
> yet)
> If so, then there should be in-place tests that exercise this, both
> with and without that option.
> Finally, for each bug fix, we try hard to identify the released
> version in which the bug was introduced (mention that in NEWS), and
> the actual commit (mention that in the commit log for the patch).
> Thanks again for the report and patch.
> No obligation on your part to do any of the above.
> Just outlining what's required, in case you're inclined.
> If you don't do it, someone else will.

Description: application/shellscript

reply via email to

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