From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] Patchwork cleanup #8: submitter notification
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:19:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <536087D7.2030100@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140429210905.GE3248@free.fr>
On 29/04/14 23:09, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Thomas, Angelo, All,
>
> On 2014-04-29 21:48 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire spake thusly:
> [--SNIP--]
>> For this cleanup session, here are the patches:
> [--SNIP--]
>> package/makedevs: add "l" type for symlinks ownership change
>> angelo dureghello <angelo70@gmail.com>
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/283015
>>
>> C unsure: Angelo: could you describe in more detail if you are still
>> using this patch, and why you need it? How come the symbolic link does
>> not have the right ownership from the start?
>
> Note that ownership and permissions of symlinks are never checked, only
> those of the pointed-to entity (file, dir...) are.
Except for directories with mode 1777. From man 7 symlink:
The only time that the ownership of a symbolic link
matters is when the link is being removed or renamed in a directory
that has the sticky bit set (see stat(2)).
I find it hard to construct a use case, but I can imagine there is one.
It would indeed be good if this were documented in the commit log.
> Setting ownership of symlinks should not generally be a concern.
>
> However, I can se one case where we would want to be able to set
> ownership and/or permissions on a synlink: to avoid the identity of the
> "builder" to seep down into the generated filesystem. But even in that
> case, only the numerical UID would end up in the generated filesystem,
> so it is not really a concern.
That argument is void, since everything is already chown root:root.
> So, I can't really understand what the underlying problem is.
>
> Angelo, we need you to explain the issue you are facing, so we understand
> why you believe this change to be needed.
>
> (Note: a proper commit message would do just that: describe the observed
> problem, explain the underlying reason it behaves that way, introduce
> and explain the proposed fix. See for example cset 86c3244 "wget: fix
> host-gettext build dependency race" for a real-world example.)
+1
Regards,
Arnout
>
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
>
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-30 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-29 19:48 [Buildroot] Patchwork cleanup #8: submitter notification Thomas De Schampheleire
2014-04-29 20:25 ` Danomi Manchego
2014-04-29 21:09 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-04-29 22:52 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-30 16:56 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-04-30 17:40 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-30 18:05 ` Yann E. MORIN
2014-04-30 5:19 ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2014-04-30 19:19 ` sergey kostanbaev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=536087D7.2030100@mind.be \
--to=arnout@mind.be \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox