From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#37884: 27.0.50; Cannot write to a file in VirtualBox shared directory Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:34:06 +0200 Message-ID: <83k18qrvup.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h83zeoy1.fsf@pobox.com> <87blu2emi3.fsf@pobox.com> <83lft6rxrs.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="106530"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 37884@debbugs.gnu.org, bernardo.bacic@pobox.com To: Robert Pluim Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 27 17:35:12 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVY-000RZs-DP for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:35:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45852 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVX-0001bo-7j for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:35:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVQ-0001bb-8W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVP-0004at-8I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:35:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34629) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVP-0004ap-5W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:35:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlVO-0004SZ-Vp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:35:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 37884 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 37884-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B37884.157219406317087 (code B ref 37884); Sun, 27 Oct 2019 16:35:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 37884) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Oct 2019 16:34:23 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43450 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlUl-0004RX-HS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:34:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40199) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlUi-0004RC-HJ for 37884@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:34:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59334) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlUc-0004Kz-9A; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:34:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4737 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1iOlUb-0007M4-JD; Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:34:14 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Robert Pluim on Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:01:11 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:170258 Archived-At: > From: Robert Pluim > Cc: 37884@debbugs.gnu.org, bernardo.bacic@pobox.com > Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 17:01:11 +0100 > > >> Eli, if the results come back that using 0664 or similar on lockfiles > >> resolves this, would you be amenable to such a change? > > Eli> I'm not sure I understand the proposal. Is the suggestion to chmod > Eli> the file to 0644 before calling unlink? > > Yes, although of course this is assuming it works, one other option > could be to just not mess with the file's permissions at all when > initially creating the lockfile. AFAIU, the problem is with removing the file? If so, I'd suggest to do what w32.c does: call unlink as we do now, and if it fails, call chmod to make it writable and try unlink again. This has an advantage of not changing anything for filesystems that implement the Posix semantics.