On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:04:29 -0800 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Since hardlinks on sshfs do not have matching inode numbers, detect > this behavior and use a simple stat call to detect if lock_path has > been removed. > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/678218 > Signed-off-by: Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> > --- > lib/portage/locks.py | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/portage/locks.py b/lib/portage/locks.py > index 74c2c086a..510925da0 100644 > --- a/lib/portage/locks.py > +++ b/lib/portage/locks.py > @@ -340,6 +340,33 @@ def _lockfile_was_removed(lock_fd, lock_path): > > hardlink_stat = os.stat(hardlink_path) > if hardlink_stat.st_ino != fstat_st.st_ino or > hardlink_stat.st_dev != fstat_st.st_dev: > + # Create another hardlink in order to detect > whether or not > + # hardlink inode numbers are expected to > match. For example, > + # inode numbers are not expected to match > for sshfs. > + inode_test = hardlink_path + '-inode-test' > + try: > + os.unlink(inode_test) > + except OSError as e: > + if e.errno not in (errno.ENOENT, > errno.ESTALE): > + _raise_exc(e) > + try: > + os.link(hardlink_path, inode_test) > + except OSError as e: > + if e.errno not in (errno.ENOENT, > errno.ESTALE): > + _raise_exc(e) > + return True > + else: > + if not > os.path.samefile(hardlink_path, inode_test): > + # This implies that inode > numbers are not expected > + # to match for this file > system, so use a simple > + # stat call to detect if > lock_path has been removed. > + return not > os.path.exists(lock_path) > + finally: > + try: > + os.unlink(inode_test) > + except OSError as e: > + if e.errno not in > (errno.ENOENT, errno.ESTALE): > + _raise_exc(e) > return True > finally: > try: Looks fine to me
