[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg bug

Anders Hammarquist (iko@netg.se) wrote on 26 May 1998 00:50:
 >The x86 libc knows nothing of the lchown() call (though it appears the
 >manpage does). This is actually part of the problem, since the day that
 >the x86 libc realizes that there is a lchown() call things will break on
 >x86 as the do on the alpha today (since then it will call chown() for
 >chown() and lchown() for lchown(). The change of syscall numbers was
 >just a quick fix so that all you applications that expected chown() not
 >to follow symlinks wouldn't need immediate fixing).


 >>I don't understand the syscall number issue. Does this mean that a
 >>program that calls chown will in fact run lchown? This cannot be the
 >>case, otherwise the new chown will be unavailable...

 >Yes, that is exatly what it means. On x86, lchown() has syscall number 16,
 >chown() is now number 182 (it used to be 16). On the alpha, chown()
 >is 16 and lchown() is 208. (Incidentally, the 16 for chown() seems
 >rather universal, Solaris and SunOS use it for chown() as well). The
 >way it works is that when an application wants to do a chown() it
 >tells the kernel "I want to do function number 16 with these
 >parameters". The kernel then executes function number 16 (neither
 >really know what function number 16 is). And yes, the new chown() is
 >unavailable on x86 (until someone recompiles libc so that it knows
 >about the new chown() and lchown() - and then stuff will start
 >breaking on x86 just the same way as it does on the alpha today).

Oh no :-( So there really is a big mess... dpkg is broken, and libc
for x86 is also broken... Argh :-(

 >I'll write something up for linux-kernel and see if it generates any
 >interesting responses.

This isn't a kernel problem! It's a consequence of the political
decision of implementing the new unix specification. Which is quite
right, since it's a development branch.

James Troup (J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk) wrote on 25 May 1998 15:55:
 >I'm still convinced that the alpha kernel is wrong for not doing what
 >the i386 & m68k kernels are doing.

For me the issue is clear now: there's a dpkg bug, it should call
lchown for recent kernels, and there's a libc bug on x86.

I'll forward this to the bug-tracking system under bug#22748.

Thanks for the inputs,

PS: life with the alpha is REAL hard...

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: