From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SSHvm-00059K-Km for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 10 May 2012 03:12:34 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2012 18:01:35 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="141161627" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.30]) ([10.255.13.30]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2012 18:01:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4FAB136F.80800@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 18:01:35 -0700 From: Joshua Lock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saul Wold References: <934fed48b0c07e606c80023ba045c6c2471bf1b0.1336608479.git.josh@linux.intel.com> <4FAB0B6A.6010303@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FAB0B6A.6010303@linux.intel.com> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sstate.bbclass: ensure sstate files are easily shared X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 01:12:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/05/12 17:27, Saul Wold wrote: > On 05/09/2012 05:22 PM, Joshua Lock wrote: >> In order to make sstate cache's more easily shared ensure any user of >> the system has rwx permission by calling chown on sstate files after >> they're created. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock >> --- >> meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 1 + >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass >> index a8c98e5..6707ecf 100644 >> --- a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass >> +++ b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass >> @@ -454,6 +454,7 @@ sstate_create_package () { >> else >> tar -cz --file=$TFILE --files-from=/dev/null >> fi >> + chmod 0777 $TFILE >> mv $TFILE ${SSTATE_PKG} >> >> cd ${WORKDIR} > Why execute permission, and should it not be restricted to 664 for group > level write access? Why would multiple users be writing to the same > sstate file anyways once it's there it could be read-only since a change > will trigger a new sstate file, not a re-write of the existing one. For permissions I figured that whichever I went with someone would have an alternative suggestion so I went with as indiscriminate as possible - that's the main reason this is an RFC. When I was reproducing the bug and had read-only siginfo file things blew up, so I created them writeable, see [1]. Cheers, Joshua 1. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2041#c9 -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project Intel Open Source Technology Centre