On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:23:04PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, April 21, 2014 3:51:33 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:31:12PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:50:01 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > The following reply was made to PR amd64/188699; it has been noted by > GNATS. > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> > > > > To: John Allman <free...@hugme.org> > > > > Cc: freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org > > > > Subject: Re: amd64/188699: Dev tree > > > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:44:52 +0300 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:32:45PM +0000, John Allman wrote: > > > > > This is how to reproduce it: > > > > > > > > > > Fresh install of 10 on AMD 64 > > > > > install bash `pkg install bash` > > > > > Switch to bash `bash` > > > > > push a here document into a loop: `while true ; do echo; done< > > > > <(echo > "123")` > > > > > receive an error: "-su: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory" > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry I haven't been able to research this any further. I found > how while working on some important matters. As I mentioned the above works > fine in all > > > previous versions of FreeBSD up until 10. > > > > > >How-To-Repeat: > > > > > Fresh install > > > > > pkg install bash > > > > > bash > > > > > while true; do echo foo done< <(echo "123") > > > > > > > > > > -su: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory > > > > > > > > So do you have fdescfs mounted on /dev/fd on the machine where the > > > > test fails ? It works for me on head, and if unmounted, I get the > > > > same failure message as yours. I very much doubt that it has anything > > > > to do with a system version. > > > > > > Question I have is why is bash deciding to use /dev/fd/<n> and require > > > fdescfs? On older releases bash uses named pipes for this instead. > > > > The aclocal.m4 contains the test which verifies the presence and usability > > of /dev/fd/n for n>=3 on the _build_ host. The result of the test > > is used on the installation host afterward. > > > > Such kinds of bugs are endemic in our ports, but apparently upstreams > > are guilty too. > > Yuck, yuck. Should we fix our default package builders to not mount fdescfs?
IMO, using /dev/fd is more efficient since it avoids pipe inode creation for the 'document here' interpretation. The /dev/fd is also needed for fexecve(2) to work (with the shebang scripts). Also, I believe that some other high-profile ports require it (OpenJDK ?). That said, the solution is to have fdescfs mounted on /dev/fd. This probably should be done by an installer.
pgpnsguSJhZcD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
