On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:06 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 15:07 +0200, Guido Trentalancia wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 08:41 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 09:13 +0200, Guido Trentalancia wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 15:16 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > > > From 1268e66e94286a55c399383d5959734d3597792d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > > From: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:54:25 +0200 > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 11/67] policycoreutils: setfiles: FIXME switch from > > > > > stat to > > > > > stat64 > > > > > > > > > > This looks bad. glibc takes care of this. We should do send this > > > > > upstream but I would like to know why you did it in Fedora.... > > > > > > > > > > NOT-Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > policycoreutils/setfiles/restore.c | 8 ++++---- > > > > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Perhaps you could exploit a few #ifdef's here ? > > > > > > > > Such as _LARGEFILE_SOURCE _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE and/or > > > > _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 ? > > > > > > > > More available from: > > > > > > > > info libc 'Feature Test Macros' > > > > > > We were doing that before converting setfiles from using nftw(3) to > > > using fts(3) for the file tree walk. But fts.h has this gem: > > > /* The fts interface is incompatible with the LFS interface which > > > transparently uses the 64-bit file access functions. */ > > > #ifdef __USE_FILE_OFFSET64 > > > # error "<fts.h> cannot be used with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS==64" > > > #endif > > > > That must be the reason why other projects are moving in the opposite > > direction, see for example: > > > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3126942&group_id=3382&atid=103382 > > The discussion of the change for setfiles can be found in the list > archives, e.g. > http://marc.info/?t=124639081000002&r=1&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=selinux&m=124688830500777&w=2 Hi Stephen, thanks for getting back. Yes, I read that already. I still cannot understand the point since it says about the benchmark results: "so not much of a change". Last thing I can add is that I'm pretty sure I've seen around code designed to fall back to the other scheme when _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 is defined. Regards, Guido -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
