[please don't top-post here]
On 01/13/2014 01:37 AM, Terry Bowling wrote:
On 12/19/2013 04:37 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 12/18/2013 07:41 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I need to look into this some more,
but we should at least reword the warning to something more generic
BTW: the diagnostic in du(1) has been improved in 8.20 by commit
http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=cf7e1b5b
but chcon, chmod, chown, chgrp, rm, and mv are affected, too:
$ git grep emit_cycle_warning | cat
src/chcon.c: emit_cycle_warning (file_full_name);
src/chmod.c: emit_cycle_warning (file_full_name);
src/chown-core.c: emit_cycle_warning (file_full_name);
src/du.c: emit_cycle_warning (file);
src/remove.c: emit_cycle_warning (ent->fts_path);
src/system.h:#define emit_cycle_warning(file_name) \
e.g.
$ mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /mnt
$ mkdir /mnt/mnt
$ mount --bind /mnt /mnt/mnt
$ du /mnt
du: mount point ‘/mnt/mnt’ already traversed
0 /mnt
$ chown -R root /mnt
chown: WARNING: Circular directory structure.
This almost certainly means that you have a corrupted file system.
NOTIFY YOUR SYSTEM MANAGER.
The following directory is part of the cycle:
‘/mnt/mnt’
Just for the record, non-FTS ls(1) uses a different diagnostic:
$ ls -R /mnt
/mnt:
mnt
ls: /mnt/mnt: not listing already-listed directory
It seems that there is still room for improvement.
Have a nice day,
Berny
>
> Hello all,
>
> After discussing further in RH BZ 1045086
(http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-1652.htmlincludes), we I would like to
discuss the following options with upstream for consistency.
>
> 1. Ensure the new warning for du is upstream: "mount point %s already
traversed"
Already done with the above mentioned commit (cf7e1b5b).
> 2. Ensure the other commands are using the same message for consistency
(chcon, chmod, chown-core, remove)
>
> 3. Evaluate if a separate exit code for this condition is appropriate. This
would allow for slightly easier scripting to check for this condition and rule out
any concerns that the warning message
> might change in the future.
>
> 4. Evaluate find, ls - does it make sense for these to be consistent as well?
>
> After discussing here, I will likely submit a BZ for #2 in against RHEL. And
if all agree, I can submit a BZ for #3 and/or #4 as well.
>
> Thanks to all in advance for discussing this and helping us work this out. I
know it's a tedious topic. I will also document this behavior for RHEL & Fedora
to provide a final document to direct all
> future inquiries so that we can quit discussing it in the future!
> -Terry
I'd only go with #2, and probably look at ls(1).
I think it's not worth adding a new exit code (#3).
And find(1) is out of scope here - it's in findutils
(though it's probably worth looking).
I'll try to come up with a patch for #2 in the next days.
Have a nice day,
Berny
