On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 05:19:45PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Interesting. Can we take bath approaches?
I don't see why we should not.
> Is there a reason to not expose either error?
I thought it might break some legacy stuff regarding
tapes and such. But since no one spoke up...
OK?
> > pax does not exit with an error if the processed
> > archive is truncated:
> >
> > # (cd / && tar zcf - bsd | dd count=128 2>/dev/null | tar tzf -)
> > bsd
> > gzip: stdin: Input/output error
> > tar: End of archive volume 1 reached
> > gzip: stdout: Broken pipe
> > tar: Failed write to archive volume: 1: Broken pipe
> > # echo $?
> > 0
> >
> >
> > There's two ways to fix this.
> > 1) take the exit code of gzip into account:
> >
> > Index: ar_io.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/pax/ar_io.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.44
> > diff -u -p -p -u -r1.44 ar_io.c
> > --- ar_io.c 11 Jan 2014 05:36:26 -0000 1.44
> > +++ ar_io.c 28 Mar 2014 14:09:37 -0000
> > @@ -337,8 +337,11 @@ ar_close(void)
> > (void)close(arfd);
> >
> > /* Do not exit before child to ensure data integrity */
> > - if (zpid > 0)
> > + if (zpid > 0) {
> > waitpid(zpid, &status, 0);
> > + if (WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status))
> > + exit_val = 1;
> > + }
> >
> > if (vflag && (artyp == ISTAPE)) {
> > (void)fputs("done.\n", listf);
> >
> > 2)
> > call paxwarn with 1 on truncated reads.
> > Which will also work for non-gzipped tar files.
> >
> > Index: ar_io.c
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/pax/ar_io.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.44
> > diff -u -p -p -u -r1.44 ar_io.c
> > --- ar_io.c 11 Jan 2014 05:36:26 -0000 1.44
> > +++ ar_io.c 3 Apr 2014 22:04:07 -0000
> > @@ -567,7 +570,7 @@ ar_read(char *buf, int cnt)
> > if (res < 0)
> > syswarn(1, errno, "Failed read on archive volume %d", arvol);
> > else
> > - paxwarn(0, "End of archive volume %d reached", arvol);
> > + paxwarn(1, "End of archive volume %d reached", arvol);
> > return(res);
> > }
> >
> > Is there a historic reason for this?
> >
>
