On Wednesday 05 October 2011 17:31:07 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> I propose to push Kamil's fix (mainly to have a record of it,
> >> in case we need it later), but then to immediately revert it
> >> along with the file-has-acl.c change that started this.
>
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I propose to push Kamil's fix (mainly to have a record of it,
>> in case we need it later), but then to immediately revert it
>> along with the file-has-acl.c change that started this.
>> That seems to be the right thing to do, going forward,
>> since t
Jim Meyering wrote:
> I propose to push Kamil's fix (mainly to have a record of it,
> in case we need it later), but then to immediately revert it
> along with the file-has-acl.c change that started this.
> That seems to be the right thing to do, going forward,
> since the kernel folks have recentl
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
>> > a) A non-symlink, non-directory. Here acl_extended_file_nofollow and
>> > acl_extended_file are equivalent.
>>
>> If I understand this, you expect non-directories cannot be mount points, thus
>> the call cannot trigger the mount, right?
>
> That
On Monday 03 October 2011 22:47:38 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > On Monday 03 October 2011 20:46:59 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> >> Yes it is possible to mount file and it is call a bind mount. See man
> >> page of mount, and it is used in pratice
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2011 20:46:59 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> Yes it is possible to mount file and it is call a bind mount. See man page
>> of mount, and it is used in pratice essentially for /dev/null but it could
>> be used for any regular fi
On Monday 03 October 2011 20:46:59 Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Yes it is possible to mount file and it is call a bind mount. See man page
> of mount, and it is used in pratice essentially for /dev/null but it could
> be used for any regular file
Thanks for the hint. I did not know this. Luckily,
Yes it is possible to mount file and it is call a bind mount. See man page
of mount, and it is used in pratice essentially for /dev/null but it could
be used for any regular file
Le 3 oct. 2011 19:29, "Kamil Dudka" a écrit :
On Monday 03 October 2011 18:25:10 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wr
On Monday 03 October 2011 20:13:53 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > > a) A non-symlink, non-directory. Here acl_extended_file_nofollow and
> > > acl_extended_file are equivalent.
> >
> > If I understand this, you expect non-directories cannot be mount points,
> > thus the call ca
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > a) A non-symlink, non-directory. Here acl_extended_file_nofollow and
> > acl_extended_file are equivalent.
>
> If I understand this, you expect non-directories cannot be mount points, thus
> the call cannot trigger the mount, right?
That's what I was assuming, yes.
On Monday 03 October 2011 19:54:12 Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2011 18:25:10 Bruno Haible wrote:
> > g) Must return 0.
> > h) Must return 0.
> > i) Must return 0.
>
> Does the above mean that you want to change the current behavior of ls -l?
Please ignore this. The above is co
On Monday 03 October 2011 18:25:10 Bruno Haible wrote:
> g) Must return 0.
> h) Must return 0.
> i) Must return 0.
Does the above mean that you want to change the current behavior of ls -l?
Kamil
On Monday 03 October 2011 18:25:10 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > > 2) see a test case added to gnulib or coreutils.
> >
> > A while ago, Jim wrote a test-case for coreutils that catches exactly the
> > bug that the original patch introduced.
>
> I'm asking for a test case also for
p 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Kamil Dudka
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:17:22 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] file-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls
> -L
>
> * lib/file-has-acl.c (acl_extended_file_wrap): New function,
> derived from...
> (file_has_acl): ...code here. Call
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > 2) see a test case added to gnulib or coreutils.
>
> A while ago, Jim wrote a test-case for coreutils that catches exactly the bug
> that the original patch introduced.
I'm asking for a test case also for the bug that the original patch fixed.
> > If you cannot come up
it-log and ChangeLog
and rebased past Bruno's latest change. This is what I expect to push:
>From 603b1e3b16894cac183952b0b0fe379749a3aebe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Dudka
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:17:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] file-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls -
On Mon October 3 2011 15:45:36 Bruno Haible wrote:
> In fact, the code already does this, at the beginning of the function
> file_has_acl. So in case c) the big compound statement is skipped, and the
> function immediately does a "return 0". The patch that you proposed on
> 2011-04-06 and committed
On Mon October 3 2011 15:45:36 Bruno Haible wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > The commit 95f7c57 introduced an unintended change in behavior of ls -L.
> > I am attaching a patch that restores the old behavior.
>
> This patch introduces an additional lstat() system call
Yes.
> , when it is not nece
links. */
Comment replaced. Thanks for the suggestion.
Kamil
From 25b63ddf75d2ca5c86e8498f54ee9001b72c4c2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kamil Dudka
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:17:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] file-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls -L
* lib/file-has-acl.c (acl_ex
On Mon October 3 2011 15:00:46 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's a version of your patch that I find more readable:
> - prefer if (CONDITION) over #if CONDITION, when possible
> - document the code more in comments, less in the commit log
> Is this ok with you?
Sure. Thanks for the improvements!
On Mon October 3 2011 13:51:39 Jim Meyering wrote:
> From: Jim Meyering
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:49:47 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] tests: add a test to exercise today's ls-lL-vs-ACL bug
>
> * tests/ls/slink-acl: New file.
> * tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Add it.
> * tests/init.cfg (require_setfacl_)
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> The commit 95f7c57 introduced an unintended change in behavior of ls -L.
> I am attaching a patch that restores the old behavior.
This patch introduces an additional lstat() system call, when it is not
necessary.
Recall that when file_has_acl is called, it gets the result of
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> Thanks in advance for considering the patch!
> +#if (HAVE_ACL_EXTENDED_FILE) /* Linux */
Unnecessary parentheses.
> +acl_extended_file_wrap (char const *name)
The function name should explain the semantics of the function. The fact
that it's a wrapper around acl_extended_fi
e-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls -L
* lib/file-has-acl.c (acl_extended_file_wrap): New function,
derived from...
(file_has_acl): ...code here. Call it.
This problem was introduced with 2011-07-22 commit 95f7c57f,
"file-has-acl: use acl_extended_file_nofollow if available".
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Mon October 3 2011 13:09:21 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Kamil Dudka wrote:
>> > On Mon October 3 2011 12:45:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >> Can you describe how to make "ls -L" misbehave without this patch?
>> >
>> > if you have a symlink to a file with ACL, 'ls -Ll' does not print
On Mon October 3 2011 13:09:21 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > On Mon October 3 2011 12:45:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> Can you describe how to make "ls -L" misbehave without this patch?
> >
> > if you have a symlink to a file with ACL, 'ls -Ll' does not print the '+'
> > at end of the
Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Mon October 3 2011 12:45:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Can you describe how to make "ls -L" misbehave without this patch?
>
> if you have a symlink to a file with ACL, 'ls -Ll' does not print the '+'
> at end of the column with permission bits.
Thanks. I expect to add somethin
Hi Jim,
On Mon October 3 2011 12:45:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Can you describe how to make "ls -L" misbehave without this patch?
if you have a symlink to a file with ACL, 'ls -Ll' does not print the '+'
at end of the column with permission bits.
> I.e., if there isn't already a test in coreutils
00 2001
> From: Kamil Dudka
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:17:22 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] file-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls -L
>
> * lib/file-has-acl.c (acl_extended_file_wrap): A wrapper around
> acl_extended_file () that allows to call acl_extended_fil
:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] file-has-acl: revert unintended change in behavior of ls -L
* lib/file-has-acl.c (acl_extended_file_wrap): A wrapper around
acl_extended_file () that allows to call acl_extended_file_nofollow ()
only if the function is available and the file is not a symbolic link
30 matches
Mail list logo
