Re: --suffix problem - possibly bug?

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:24:46PM -0400, Jim Salter wrote: So, just to clarify - this is a bug that needs fixing only on the server side, not the client side, correct? Yes, that's correct. ..wayne.. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before

rsync is great

2004-04-08 Thread Eric Ortega
I'm not on the list but I just wanted to throw my positive feedback out there. I've been using rsync to backup work that I generate within a lab to an offsite system. If I lost this data ... So great. In standard community fashion, though, I want to throw an idea out there. It would be nice

Re: librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Eran Tromer
Hi, On 2004/04/05 07:21, Donovan Baarda wrote: [snip] there are four ways crafted blocks can be use; 1) two crafted blocks in the original file 2) two crafted blocks in the target file 3) a crafted pair of target and original files with matching block(s) 4) a block in the target

Re: librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Donovan Baarda
G'day, From: Eran Tromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] librsync needs a whole file checksum. Without it, it silently fails for case 1), 3), and 4). librsync could benefit from a random checksum_seed. It would need to be included in the signature. Without it librsync is vulnerable to cases 1)

Re: [librsync-devel] librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Eran Tromer
On 2004/04/08 08:50, Donovan Baarda wrote: In some cases you might prefer to actually store an signed signature using something like GPG. I think librsync should act as a black box that guarantees file integrity (which, apparently, requires a whole file checksum). If someone wants to add

Re: [librsync-devel] librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Donovan Baarda
G'day again, From: Eran Tromer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] if the checksum_seed is based on something like the whole file md4sum, it becomes repeatable, but unpredictable. You can't manipulate individual blocks without it affecting every other blocksum, but the signature for the same file

Re: [librsync-devel] librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Eran Tromer
Ahoy, On 2004/04/08 14:16, Donovan Baarda wrote: Nice indeed, but the cost is enormous: you'll have to read the file twice. When syncing a mostly-unchanged file that's larger than the disk cache, that means doubling the runtime (and disk load) on the receiver's side. Also, it means 'rdiff

Re: rsync is great

2004-04-08 Thread Brian Cuttler
Use # find on the remote system and list | rm files that meet your date criteria ? I'm not on the list but I just wanted to throw my positive feedback out there. I've been using rsync to backup work that I generate within a lab to an offsite system. If I lost this data ... So great.

Re: [librsync-devel] librsync and rsync vulnerability to maliciously crafted data. was Re: MD4 checksum_seed

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 03:50:48PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote: I think I've just realised what you were getting at; if the checksum_seed is based on something like the whole file md4sum, it becomes repeatable, but unpredictable. Not so. Copy the file once, and you'd get all the data you'd

Re: Q: --one-file-system and nested file systems

2004-04-08 Thread Brian McEntire
Thanks Wayne! reading of the files on the source machine. However, you can include all the source filesystems as args in a single copy command and it will enforce the single-filesystem (inode-based) restriction separately for each arg you specify: rsync -avxR -e ssh --numeric-ids

Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Williams, Tom
OK. Didn't see anything about this in the archives, other than an old post from 2000 about a similar problem, so here goes. Feel free to contact me if I can provide anything else useful. Problem: Major numbers on 64bit Solaris are being dropped, and created as 0 on recieving end.

Re: Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Williams, Tom wrote: Major numbers on 64bit Solaris are being dropped, and created as 0 on recieving end. 32bit version works perfectly. Looks like the code is masking a 64-bit number with a 32-bit mask (ouch)! Try the attached patch and let me know

Re: Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:43:18PM -0700, Williams, Tom wrote: rsync version 2.6.0 protocol version 27 I just noticed that you aren't talking about the 2.6.1 pre-release, so that patch I just sent won't do you any good unless you first download that:

Re: Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 02:33:29PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: If you could retry things using the pre-release + patch, I'd appreciate it! Note that my patch won't fix the problem because rsync only transmits the lower 32 bits of the rdev value. To fix this will require a protocol change.

RE: Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Williams, Tom
We seem to working from wildly different revs of flist.c :) Mine is the stock file from the 2.6.0 source. I don't even find an occurance of 0xFF in there, so your patch wouldn't apply, even by hand -- the code is just too different. I think I understand what you were attempting to accomplish

RE: Device majors incorrectly set to 0 during rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Williams, Tom
Excellent! In the meantime, the 32bit + -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 works brilliantly, so I'll wait for a release. This is meant to run on prod boxes, so I need to use a release if possible, so noone asks funny questions about beta software, etc. You know how it is. I just have to remember to

Re: rsync is slowing down

2004-04-08 Thread Tim Conway
I wrote a tool to get around a similar problem. In my case, I had to bail on rsync altogether... the hardware was just too unreliable and limited in resources. I've BCCd the current custodian of that tool, who was at least at one time a member of this list. If my old company has no objection

Regarding ownership !!

2004-04-08 Thread Lakshminarayanan Radhakrishnan
Dear Mr.Tim, Options used in rsync command in our system: rsync --verbose --recursive --update --delete --group --owner --times --perm Eventhough i am using -owner option while synching to the mate system. The owner ship from the System A is not restored in the System B. ( System B is

CVS update: rsync/patches

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
Date: Thu Apr 8 06:38:46 2004 Author: wayned Update of /data/cvs/rsync/patches In directory dp.samba.org:/tmp/cvs-serv8981 Added Files: ODBC-dblog.diff Log Message: Daemon logging to a database. Revisions: ODBC-dblog.diff NONE = 1.1

CVS update: rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
Date: Thu Apr 8 23:05:36 2004 Author: wayned Update of /data/cvs/rsync In directory dp.samba.org:/tmp/cvs-serv7355 Modified Files: flist.c Log Message: Fixed a bug in the sending of rdev when the high-bits match. Revisions: flist.c 1.207 = 1.208

CVS update: rsync

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
Date: Fri Apr 9 00:33:34 2004 Author: wayned Update of /data/cvs/rsync In directory dp.samba.org:/tmp/cvs-serv22506 Modified Files: tls.c Log Message: If we're listing a device, out the major and minor device numbers. Revisions: tls.c 1.15 = 1.16

CVS update: rsync/testsuite

2004-04-08 Thread Wayne Davison
Date: Fri Apr 9 00:36:45 2004 Author: wayned Update of /data/cvs/rsync/testsuite In directory dp.samba.org:/tmp/cvs-serv23705/testsuite Modified Files: devices.test Log Message: Added a couple extra character devices to be copied. Revisions: devices.test1.6 = 1.7