[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:05:55 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Gnulib bugs <bug-gnulib@....org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
39236@...bugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39236: coreutils cp mishandles error return from
lchmod
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Eggert:
>
> > On 1/22/20 2:05 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> I think we're approaching a consensus that glibc should fix this too,
> >> so then it would just be gnulib matching the fix.
> >
> > I installed the attached patch to Gnulib in preparation for the upcoming
> > glibc fix. The patch causes fchmodat with AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW to work on
> > non-symlinks, and similarly for lchmod on non-symlinks. The idea is to
> > avoid this sort of problem in the future, and to let Coreutils etc. work
> > on older platforms as if glibc 2.32 (or whatever) is already in place.
>
> The lchmod implementation based on /proc tickles an XFS bug:
>
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2020-02/msg00467.html>
Uhg, why does Linux even let the fs driver see whether the chmod is
being performed via a filename, O_PATH fd, or magic symlink in /proc?
It should just be an operation on the inode.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
