On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Michael Shigorin wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 06:22:54PM +0200, Elan Ruusam?e wrote: > >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/1104474 > >>>> so, altlinux fixed that problem already in 2009? > >>> > >>> Erm, let's ask Dmitry Levin. > >> > >> That fix was for cpio, rpm has its own cpio writer. > >> BTW, fix for rpm commited :) > >> > > > > Fix was what: undoing the transaction id suffix'd temp files? > > > > Tricky to get right on a segfault because of limitations on signal handlers > > ... > > > > If you mean that the patch here was applied to @rpm5.org code > > http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=7a9a5505667c681044bacb21c9b84ac66c062fe7 > note that the information leakage was fixed a different way, during rpmbuild, > by anonymizing > all ino_t that end up in a *.rpm metadata as a int32_t. > > Its just a hash truncated to 32 bits, all that is needed is that all > hardlinks have > identical ino_t marker, all the fuss about aliasing on a build system ino_t > accidental collision is just fuss-o-bout.
I applied only the lib/fsm.c part, I saw that inode numbers were already hashed in rpm5, they just weren't propagated I think. -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl baggins<at>pld-linux.org _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en