bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Wednesday 07 December 2022 01:59:27 Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/6/22 17:02, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > newfstatat(4, "banlist.json", {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0700, st_size=4096, ...}, > > AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) = 0 openat(4, "banlist.json", > > O_RDONLY|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK|O_NOFOLLOW|O_CLOEXEC|O_DIRECTORY) =

bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Paul Eggert
On 12/6/22 17:02, Luke Dashjr wrote: That was the stack trace in the original report ;) OK. newfstatat(4, "banlist.json", {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0700, st_size=4096, ...}, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) = 0 openat(4, "banlist.json", O_RDONLY|O_NOCTTY|O_NONBLOCK|O_NOFOLLOW|O_CLOEXEC|O_DIRECTORY) = 3

bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Wednesday 07 December 2022 00:35:17 Paul Eggert wrote: > Who's calling 'abort' and why? You can use GDB to find out. That was the stack trace in the original report ;) Here's a `bt full`: #0 0x77dab80c in __pthread_kill_implementation (threadid=, signo=, no_tid=no_tid@entry=0) at

bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Paul Eggert
I don't see any failures in stat-like syscalls there, so it looks like at least the bug you mentioned has mutated (even if it hasn't been fixed...). Who's calling 'abort' and why? You can use GDB to find out.

bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Tuesday 06 December 2022 19:08:57 Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2022-12-04 10:07, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > Version: sys-apps/coreutils-9.1-r1 (Gentoo) > > > > Context: Linux has a long-standing bug which leads to ext4 RAM dishs > > (zram specifically) getting corrupted randomly. This manifests as

Re: [PATCH] tee: Add --pipe-check to allow instantly detecting closed outputs

2022-12-06 Thread Carl Edquist
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022, Carl Edquist wrote: (4.) + /* readable event on STDOUT is equivalent to POLLERR, + and implies an error condition on output like broken pipe. */ I know this is what the comment from tail.c says, but is it actually documented to be true somewhere? And on what

Re: Feature request: Rename files with a decent name if two files have the same name.

2022-12-06 Thread Stéphane Archer
Thank you Gregory for your answer, This is doing the rename to avoid the overwriting which is great! The only problem is the "with a decent name" part that is missing, this is changing the file extension. gmv --backup=t foo.tar bar.tar will result in bar.tar bar.tar.~1~ is there any way to

bug#59821: 9.1: du Aborted (corrupt filesystem)

2022-12-06 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2022-12-04 10:07, Luke Dashjr wrote: Version: sys-apps/coreutils-9.1-r1 (Gentoo) Context: Linux has a long-standing bug which leads to ext4 RAM dishs (zram specifically) getting corrupted randomly. This manifests as various newfstatat calls returning -1 errno=EUCLEAN (Structure needs

Re: [PATCH] tee: Add --pipe-check to allow instantly detecting closed outputs

2022-12-06 Thread Carl Edquist via GNU coreutils General Discussion
Hi Arsen, thanks for your feedback! On Tue, 6 Dec 2022, Arsen Arsenović wrote: The stubborn part of me might say, for platforms that do not natively support poll(2), we could simply leave out support for this feature. If that's not acceptable, we could add a select(2)-based fallback for

Re: [PATCH] tee: Add --pipe-check to allow instantly detecting closed outputs

2022-12-06 Thread Arsen Arsenović
Arsen Arsenović writes: > From 582e0a27b7995aac90cc360463ec8bde1a44cfe4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Paul Eggert ^ Whoops, I forgot to fix this after committing with the wrong hash in --reuse-commit. I don't want to confuse anyone, I authored the patch. Apologies. -- Arsen Arsenović

Re: [PATCH] tee: Add --pipe-check to allow instantly detecting closed outputs

2022-12-06 Thread Arsen Arsenović
Hi Carl, Carl Edquist writes: > Originally I had in mind to put the read() call inside the poll() loop. But if > we keep this feature as an option, it felt it was a bit easier just to add the > "if (pipe_check) {...}" block before the read(). Yes, I do agree that this is likely cleaner. > For