unofficial mirror of bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
Cc: gmatta@gmail.com, 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu,
	craven@gmx.net
Subject: bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:43:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <83pn15g28y.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m25z2zfsyf.fsf@matts-mbp-2016.lan> (message from Matt Armstrong on Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:39:36 -0800)

> From: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
> Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>,  gmatta@gmail.com,
>   46397@debbugs.gnu.org,  craven@gmx.net
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:39:36 -0800
> 
> > We should not ignore these errors, we should ask the user what to do
> > about them.  The user can tell us the error can be ignored, but we
> > should not decide that without asking.
> 
> I think Paul's commit is a good one. I'll try to explain why.
> 
> The commit does not silently ignore ENOTDIR. Instead, it is explicitly
> handles that particular error code it in a way that honors the lock file
> API contract.

I said "silently" because the user is left unaware of what Emacs did
in this case.  We don't even show a warning or any other informative
message.

> In this case, Paul's commit changes the current_lock_owner() function
> such that it returns zero upon ENOTDIR. The caller must interpret the
> zero return as meaning "at the time current_lock_owner() was called,
> nobody owned the lock file...or the lock file was obsolete."
> 
> ENOTDIR has a specific meaning that we can rely on. Both ENOENT and
> ENOTDIR imply that the file was definitely not on disk at the time of
> the call. Because of this, current_lock_owner() can safely conclude that
> nobody owned the lock.

"Definitely"? "safely"?  How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The Posix spec of 'unlink' says:

  [ENOTDIR]
      A component of the path prefix names an existing file that is
      neither a directory nor a symbolic link to a directory, or the
      path argument contains at least one non- <slash> character and
      ends with one or more trailing <slash> characters and the last
      pathname component names an existing file that is neither a
      directory nor a symbolic link to a directory.

It doesn't even say which component of the file name is not a
directory, nor does it distinguish between the two different use cases
that could cause ENOTDIR.  How can current_lock_owner decide, on these
shaky grounds alone, that nobody owned the lock, let alone do that
'safely"?

My point is that the values of errno provide too little information
for a safe decision here, one that couldn't possibly be wrong.  It
could be the scenario that triggered this bug report, but it could be
something entirely different.  We just don't know enough, and any
assumptions in this situation can definitely err.

Which is why I still think that we need to bring the user into the
loop.  Users will know what could or did happen, and even if they
don't, they are in charge of resolving the situation.  These problems
are rare enough to not make prompting the user for the appropriate
action an annoyance, so there's no good reason not to do so.  Doing so
will, as a nice bonus, also solve similar problems for any other value
of errno, once and for all.





  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-12  7:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-09  9:47 bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file Peter
2021-02-09 23:47 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-10  0:23   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-10 15:05     ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10 19:23       ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-10 19:45         ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10 22:39           ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-12  7:43             ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2021-02-12  9:36               ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-12 11:33                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-12 23:59                   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-13  8:07                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-11 22:14         ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-12  2:20           ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-12  7:15             ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-13  1:15               ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-13  1:26                 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-13  8:21                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-13  8:28                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-14  0:49                   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-14 19:22                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-14 22:16                       ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-15 15:09                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-16  0:49                           ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-16  1:55                             ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-16 15:06                               ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-16 11:53                             ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-02-22 19:24                             ` bug#46397: [PATCH] " Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:10                           ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:23                             ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-19 21:46                               ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-20  9:09                                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-21  0:36                                   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-21 23:43                                     ` Mike Kupfer
2021-02-22  1:42                                       ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-14 18:03                                         ` Bill Wohler
2021-03-17 23:36                                           ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-24 17:37                                     ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-24 18:50                                       ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-01 16:59                                       ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-05 22:19                                         ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-06  9:36                                           ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-06 23:39                                             ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-07  2:50                                             ` Paul Eggert
2021-03-07  5:57                                               ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:45                             ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-19 21:52                               ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-08  2:18                               ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-11 14:34                                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-17 23:49                                   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-17 23:51                                   ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-20 10:43                                     ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-22  1:43                                       ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-27  9:20                                         ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10  0:26   ` Matt Armstrong

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=83pn15g28y.fsf@gnu.org \
    --to=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=46397@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=craven@gmx.net \
    --cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
    --cc=gmatta@gmail.com \
    --cc=matt@rfc20.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).