tags 32796 fixed
close 32796
stop
On 2018-10-08 12:27 a.m., Paul Eggert wrote:
Thanks for checking. I installed the attached into Gnulib master. The
"(tiny change)" is because the patch is small enough that we don't need
to worry about copyright papers.
Pushed here:
Thanks for checking. I installed the attached into Gnulib master. The "(tiny
change)" is because the patch is small enough that we don't need to worry about
copyright papers.
>From c50cf67bd7ff70525f3cb4074f0d9cc1f5c6cf9c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Henriksson
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018
Quoting Paul Eggert (2018-10-07 22:21:12)
> The strace results you sent were of the old code and the new code, apparently
> running in a chrooted environment. I'd like to see what happens if the test
> is run in a non-chrooted environment; just the basic environment that people
> get when they log
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Which test result would you like to see?
I have coreutils with that patch running on my system and in the chroot and mv
seems to be working fine as far as I can see.
The strace results you sent were of the old code and the new code, apparently
running in a chrooted
Johannes Schauer wrote:
Which other tests should I perform?
I'd like to see a test using glibc without a fake root, as that's the most
common way this code will be used.
Quoting Paul Eggert (2018-10-07 22:14:11)
> Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Which other tests should I perform?
> I'd like to see a test using glibc without a fake root, as that's the most
> common way this code will be used.
Which test result would you like to see?
I have coreutils with that patch
My last mail seems to have been dropped. Maybe because of the attachment size?
I now gzipped the attachments.
Hi,
Quoting Paul Eggert (2018-10-07 02:54:09)
> Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > wouldn't a simple patch like the attached one do the trick?
> Most likely yes, but I'd like it tested before
Andreas Henriksson wrote:
wouldn't a simple patch like the attached one do the trick?
Most likely yes, but I'd like it tested before installing. This is because the
patch shouldn't affect behavior on any platform, and it's better to sanity-check
a clerical patch like this (by actually using
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > This problem could be solved by coreutils using the glibc renameat2
> > function in
> > glibc version 2.28 and newer.
>
> Yes, that's on my list of things to do. It's not high priority, though, so
>
Hi,
tools like `mv` currently perform a direct renameat2 syscall. This is
problematic for software like fakechroot which allows one to perform a fake
chroot call without being root by intercepting and overriding libc functions
using LD_PRELOAD. It is currently not possible to perform a `mv` with
10 matches
Mail list logo
