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.
This adds persistent symlinks for nst tape devices to the example
rules. The symlinks live under /dev/tape/by-id/.
Signed-off-by: Jamie Wellnitz <Jamie.Wellnitz@emulex.com>
Seems we find the md signature in cpu-order on the disk. Let's
look for both endian encodings ...
Thanks to Michael Prokop for his help finding the bug.
Fix udev_rules_apply_format() to give error messages for unknown
format elements and pass such elements to the output string
unmodified.
When truncating the substitution string to the length specified in the
format string, head[len] = '\0' could write outside the buffer if that
length was too large.
udev_db_add_device() can be called when the corressponding database
entry already exists - it should overwrite the old entry in this case.
However, if the old entry was a symlink, fopen(filename, "w") will not
overwrite it properly - it will keep the symlink and create a file
named after the symlink target. Calling unlink(filename) before
trying to create the database file fixes the problem.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru>
The current code will label the target of a symlink rather than the
link itself. This means that the link does not get it's context set
and the target gets the wrong context.
Incidentally this affects the labelling of hard disk device nodes and
can get in the way of booting.
Also get_media() should not be called with devname==NULL.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > > This is a sort of follow-up of my path-based persistence patch for
> > > net devices; it's the opposite type of addition for CD symlinks.
> >
> > Looks good. I am attaching a slightly reformatted version, I think it
> > should be applied.
>
> That's probably a lot more clear than my version anyway: what you posted
> looks like it does basically the same thing, just with some changes in
> the order and sense of checks.
