On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:24:40PM +0200, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> However, it then forks the mutt_dotlock process, which fails
> because it the filesystem with the mbox is readonly.
>
> The source from mbox.c reads
> if (mbox_lock_mailbox (ctx, 0, 0) == -1)
> {
> mutt_unblock_signals ();
> /* we couldn't lock the mailbox, but nothing serious happened:
> * probably the new mail arrived: no reason to wait till we can
> * parse it: we'll get it on the next pass
> */
> return (M_LOCKED);
> }
>
> Needless to say the assumption expressed in the comments does not
> hold.
>
> Would this finding justify a bug report?Not really. You can't really fix this. If mutt can't lock the folder then other processes (e.g. the MDA) can change the contents out from under Mutt while it's reading the file, potentially resulting in an inconsistent state. But, there's probably not really any good reason to read mail from a read-only NFS mount, so just stop doing that, and your problem should go away. If the mail is local, read it locally; if you must use NFS, then there are some other considerations. You may want to swtich to maildir to avoid locking problems entirely. Or if not, and you're on Linux, you should know that: - Dot-locking is (or at least was, and may still be) unreliable over NFS - POSIX locking (i.e. fctnl()) is not. So Mutt's default locking options should work for you, since it uses both dot-locking (unreliable) and fcntl() (reliable). Also note that on other Unix systems, the opposite has historically been typically true, so you'll get plenty of people telling you not to trust that. But the Linux open() man page documents the reason why the dot locking doesn't work, and tells you to use fcntl() instead. There WERE some serious bugs in Linux's lockd that made all forms of locking over NFS not reliable on Linux, but those were fixed c. 2001 or so. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgp29MsZGsYzW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
