Re: bug #1104474
On 12.03.2013 22:42, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: (I doubt it, but I have no idea what patches are applied). bug tracker has sample rpm files that segfault, you can use your vanilla rpm binary to test and confirm/exclude. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote: . > > 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. > If not propagated (by replacing the int32_t in the metadata with the truncated hash of the ino64_t), then something else is wrong (I doubt it, but I have no idea what patches are applied). Yes you need to build the rpm with the truncated hash. Using the index instead of the value (and the hack when xdev filesystem boundary is crossed) is less general because it implicitly assumes that all hard links are contained in the same package ... ... which is a pretty safe assumption because of hoary practice but someone is sure to complain. *shrug* its all pretty much a fuss about nothing that eventually occurs. In most cases a a later rebuild is gud enuf to repair the accidental collision. 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > ___ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
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/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
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. 73 de Jeff > 73 de Jeff > > >> -- >> Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux >> SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ >> bagginsmimuw.edu.pl >> bagginspld-linux.org >> ___ >> pld-devel-en mailing list >> pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org >> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en > > ___ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
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 ... 73 de Jeff > -- > Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux > SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ > bagginsmimuw.edu.pl > bagginspld-linux.org > ___ > pld-devel-en mailing list > pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org > http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
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 :) -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsmimuw.edu.pl bagginspld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: bug #1104474
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. -- WBR, Michael Shigorin -- Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
bug #1104474
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/1104474 so, altlinux fixed that problem already in 2009? -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
