Re: pseudo: host user contamination

[Seebs <seebs@seebs.net>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:56:16 +0000
"Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

> On 23 March 2018 at 16:49, Seebs <seebs@seebs.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:30:55 +0000
> > "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Because in GNU's infinite wisdom they're using renameat2() to do
> >> atomic renames in the mv command, and as renameat2 isn't in the
> >> headers for F27 it just does a syscall directly. This is in
> >> upstream coreutils so once they make a release, everyone gets it.
> >
> > UGH.
> >
> > I... am really unsure whether it's possible to catch that, because
> > I really, really, don't want to try to intercept raw syscall()
> > calls. I don't think that ends well.
> >
> > I wonder if they can be persuaded to, you know, NOT use a syscall
> > directly when it's not in the system headers, on the grounds that
> > the system headers define the exported interface, and bypassing
> > them is almost certainly a very bad idea.
> 
> Just chatting to the fakeroot maintainer now, as this is presumably
> going to break the entire Debian build infrastructure when they get
> the coreutils upgrade.  He isn't massively thrilled either.  They have
> the option of just reverting these changes to coreutils though.

It's *possible* that there's a workaround, but I think realistically
the right answer is probably "yell at coreutils not to do that".

-s