Menu
▾
▴
[Tcl-bugs] [ tcl-Bugs-219158 ] Test fCmd-9.4 relies on buggy rename implementation
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2013-05-18 02:57:28
|
Bugs item #219158, was opened at 2000-10-25 22:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by smallm You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=219158&group_id=10894 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: 37. File System Group: obsolete: 8.0.3 Status: Open Resolution: Postponed Priority: 1 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Stuart Cassoff (stwo) Summary: Test fCmd-9.4 relies on buggy rename implementation Initial Comment: OriginalBugID: 1399 Bug Version: 8.0.3 SubmitDate: '1999-03-02' LastModified: '2000-04-03' Severity: LOW Status: Assigned Submitter: pat ChangedBy: hobbs OS: Linux-SuSE OSVersion: + NCR Unix + Siemens Reliant Unix Machine: Other FixedDate: '2000-10-25' ClosedDate: '2000-10-25' Name: Ulrich Sch ReproducibleScript: Test fCmd-9.4 works on Linux and NCR, but fails on Siemens (Reliant 5.43). ObservedBehavior: file rename uses the rename syscall. According to the man page and an ancient AT&T spec "rename" should fail with EACCES when moving a 555 directory to a new destination. fCmd-9.4 expects a buggy implementation of "rename". DesiredBehavior: Thus, Tcls "file rename" should fail, too. The solaris docs seem to say the same thing, but it does indeed work without error on Solaris (as well as Linux and HP)... -- 04/03/2000 hobbs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mike Small (smallm) Date: 2013-05-17 19:57 Message: One more thing, this is intentional behaviour on the part of OpenBSD, as recently clarified in their rename(2) man page: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/sys/rename.2.diff?r1=1.18;r2=1.19 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=136802986314774&w=2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mike Small (smallm) Date: 2013-05-07 18:58 Message: I was hasty with the last paragraph of this new comment. Of course it was the second sentence of the quote, with the words "write access permission may be required for the directory named by old" that applies here. The younger me wasn't as blind as I thought. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mike Small (smallm) Date: 2013-05-06 20:02 Message: Using 8.6.0, it still fails for me on openbsd-current dated May 3, 2013 on macppc: fCmd.test ==== fCmd-9.4.b file rename: comprehensive: dir to new name FAILED ==== Contents of test case: file mkdir td1 td2 testchmod 555 td2 file rename td1 td3 file rename td2 td4 list [lsort [glob td*]] [file writable td3] [file writable td4] ---- Test generated error; Return code was: 1 ---- Return code should have been one of: 0 2 ---- errorInfo: error renaming "td2" to "td4": permission denied while executing "file rename td2 td4" ("uplevel" body line 5) invoked from within "uplevel 1 $script" ---- errorCode: POSIX EACCES {permission denied} ==== fCmd-9.4.b FAILED I tried NetBSD 6.0.1 and DragonFlyBSD 3.3 and it passed in both of those. Now that I read my comment below, I'm not sure how I thought that quote applied here. Maybe I missed the word _containing_? Sorry about that. I wear glasses now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Don Porter (dgp) Date: 2013-03-24 08:10 Message: What's the story on BSD systems now? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mike Small (smallm) Date: 2008-02-10 19:14 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=691174 Originator: NO OpenBSD 4.2-current also fails on this test when using Tcl 8.5.1. According to this page below, an implementation has the option to fail when the source directory to rename lacks write permission: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/rename.html "Write access permission is required for the directory containing old and the directory containing new. If the old argument points to the pathname of a directory, write access permission may be required for the directory named by old, and, if it exists, the directory named by new." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Don Porter (dgp) Date: 2002-07-05 13:53 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=80530 should this be closed as really being "bugs" in the operating system(s) ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Vince Darley (vincentdarley) Date: 2002-04-04 09:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=32170 This is not something I am qualified to look into. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110894&aid=219158&group_id=10894 |