IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
If you lchown("symlink") then we were incorrectly trying to chown the
symlink target, rather than the symlink itself. In particular, this cause
cp -a to fail for a broken symlink. Additionally, it was using the
symlink target when verifying writability, rather than the symlink
itself.
To fix this, we need pass AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW in these cases.
In general, the kernel itself will always resolve any symlinks for us
before calling into the fuse backend, so we should really never do any
symlink following in the fuse fs itself. So, we pro-actively add
NOFOLLOW flags to a few other places:
truncate:
In reality this will never be hit, because
the kernel will resolve symlinks before calling us.
access:
It seems the current fuse implementation never calls this
(faccessat w/AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW never reaches the fuse fs)
but if this ever is implemented this is the correct behaviour.
We would ideally do `chmod` but this is not implemented on current kernels.
Because we're not multi-threaded, this is OK anyways.
Further, our write verification wasn't correctly handling the case of hardlinked
symlinks, which can occur for `bare` checkouts but *not* `bare-user` which the
tests were using. Change to `bare` mode to verify that.
Closes: #1137
Approved by: alexlarsson
At least in all Linux kernels up to today, one can never `link()` across
devices, so we might as well verify that up front. This will help for a future
patch to add a new type of union-add checkout, since Linux checks for `EEXIST`
before `EXDEV`.
Closes: #714
Approved by: jlebon
The test suite was actually doing something before, just
not quite what I intended. Without `-U` for bare-user checkouts
we end up doing a copy.
Now, a future commit will change how rofiles work, which would cause
the test suite to permit inplace mutation for non-hardlinked files.
So let's ensure they *are* hardlinked.
Closes: #462
Approved by: jlebon
I've seen a few people hit this and wonder why checkouts are slow/take
space. Really, ensuring this happens is the *point* of OSTree.
Physical copies should be a last resort fallback for very unusual
situations (one of those is rpm-ostree checking out the db since
librpm doesn't know how to read from libostree).
Even I hit the fact that `/var` is a mountpoint disallowing hardlinks
with `/ostree` once and was confused. =)
Add this to the rofiles-fuse test case because it creates a mount
point.
Closes: #368
Approved by: jlebon
Some autobuilder environments place the entire build chroot on tmpfs, so
even /var/tmp might not have this.
Signed-off-by: Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>
Closes: #232
Approved by: cgwalters
While it's not strictly tied to OSTree, let's move
https://github.com/cgwalters/rofiles-fuse in here because:
- It's *very* useful in concert with OSTree
- It's tiny
- We can reuse OSTree's test, documentation, etc. infrastructure
One thing to consider also is that at some point we could experiment
with writing a FUSE filesystem for OSTree. This could internalize a
better equivalent of `--link-checkout-speedup`, but on the other hand,
the cost of walking filesystem trees for these types of operations is
really quite small.
But if we did decide to do more FUSE things in OSTree, this is a step
towards that too.
