On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 23:44 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:32:49PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Please allow gnucash 2.2.6-2 into testing; this has a minimally invasive > > patch to avoid a dangerous data-loss bug in an unusual usage case. > > > (It turns out that sshfs returns ENOSYS on a link call. This is wildly > > wrong; it has no business doing so, especially when EPERM is already the > > documented error for the filesystem-doesn't-support-it case.) > > > Regardless, gnucash did poorly in this case, and the patch in 2.2.6-2 > > fixes the (release-critical) problem. > > Given that sshfs's errno return is "wildly wrong", is there a > release-critical bug filed about this somewhere too? Possibly on glibc, > which I think is responsible for ensuring that the errno values returned > from its userspace functions are compliant, even when the kernel's return > values need to be mapped?
No, glibc isn't responsible for that actually. All functions are generally allowed to return other errors. glibc should not be doing that--and historically never has. It's sshfs that is responsible. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]