Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:56:07 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq@....com>
Cc: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: removing /var/lib/rpm/__db.00? on rpm upgrade (was: recent updates)

Hi Jeff,

I am sorry I didn't reply sooner.  As you can see, things are very slow
here, but it looks like Vasily Kulikov will work on bringing Owl more
up-to-date this year - so we should see some activity, and hopefully by
you and others as well.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 03:47:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> I've just joined owl-dev@ mailing list and
> will be trying to install 3.1-stable and current
> in the next few days

Great.  How did it go?

> > %triggerpostun -- %name < 4.2-owl22
> > # Remove __db.00? files that look like they're pre-NPTL.  We may be removing
> > # files that are opened and/or memory-mapped by us (by the rpm process that
> > # installs the new rpm package), but that's OK.  The next invocation of rpm
> > # will recreate the files.  4.2-owl22 is when we added this trigger, and we
> > # were already using NPTL at the time, so there is no need to perform the
> > # size check and possibly remove the files when upgrading from newer versions.
> > RPMDBDIR=/var/lib/rpm
> > if [ -f $RPMDBDIR/__db.001 -a "`wc -c < $RPMDBDIR/__db.001`" -le 8192 ]; then
> > 	rm -f $RPMDBDIR/__db.00?
> > fi
> 
> You shouldn't simply remove __db.00? files even if that "works".
> At a minimum, run
> 	db53_recover -h /var/lib/rpm
> in %posttrans where /var/lib/rpm is quiescent.

Oh.  What harm is there in removing these files?

> > We probably need a similar section for the recent rpm update as well.
> > Would both sections fire when upgrading from even older rpm, though
> > (prior to 4.2-owl22)?  Would that be OK?  I guess so, but perhaps the
> > old section above will become redundant, and thus we need to replace it
> > rather than add another?  This needs some thinking and testing.
> Let me catch up with Owl packaging and I'll try to send along a patch.

We'd appreciate a more proper patch, yes.

Thanks,

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ