From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.seebs.net (mail.seebs.net [162.213.38.76]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845826FFA4 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seebsdell (unknown [24.196.59.174]) by mail.seebs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B04A2E892B; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:49:41 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:49:39 -0500 From: Seebs To: "Burton, Ross" Message-ID: <20180323114939.218c0607@seebsdell> In-Reply-To: References: <20180323112820.12bc94a4@seebsdell> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Enrico Scholz , OE-core Subject: Re: pseudo: host user contamination X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:49:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:30:55 +0000 "Burton, Ross" 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. -s