From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35497: [PATCH] Don't rewrite buffer contents after saving by rename Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 23:21:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8afw5nt.fsf@gmx.de> References: <20190429232009.94549-1-jktomer@google.com> <87pnp4t0zp.fsf@gmx.de> <875zqvz0co.fsf@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="236434"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 35497@debbugs.gnu.org To: Jonathan Tomer Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 30 23:22:12 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 (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCZ-000zJs-Ey for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 23:22:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53709 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCY-0004UY-Hc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:22:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCR-0004UI-Rd for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:22:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCQ-0004pc-Q8 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:22:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:57277) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCQ-0004pW-KD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:22:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaCQ-0004gQ-FM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:22:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Albinus Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35497 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 35497-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35497.155665929717971 (code B ref 35497); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:22:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35497) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Apr 2019 21:21:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42588 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaC0-0004fn-Ua for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:21:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:57331) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hLaBy-0004fX-WE for 35497@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:21:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1556659288; bh=EJRaNzicw0Tvfjpmb4xyI/cJi5JlDkieE+ZuoiL2WDI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Fu3wkEaZq6jkKWUTimqmXvzd5VmpjUNno4gnA7A/H+UkZu6Qy2GNIM+eDpa0crTVx MPUzt5saGD36AxW2NiLTfmB9fRM4DBS/9g4BGet6hBN+crHVHk2DYcGiVCIp0pX+Sc k5ZtPtlBWeC1R+ulAQYXfdMebeBsQ2t4FTwyKCj4= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from detlef.gmx.de ([212.86.52.91]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MCsQ4-1hULdH3mUq-008uCL; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 23:21:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Jonathan Tomer's message of "Tue, 30 Apr 2019 14:10:32 -0700") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:y2uBmCmPZazNMCiIZE7bmx8WxIxf6MInb7ZHN59iF8H+MJkDdeP JTTDns8sZ22f1jzO/rekrmVVLsRo4ijhRb3BiGMS0tIbMDmotZcbZhj1tGH7c3DxSIimalr qi5fTrJMSSxb+ZmToDk2lLSUY0MGyz1I68UQy1RLiqN+YRWPbU2sFN6JVBUHrtqXwTXOyNX qIeo5pw5qkn1sL7eYhy+w== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:fy4SNuaS33c=:2WxbW7iPD13dyUoPpOJ+Nh Xln2dcuHaunl+sxCUinTv1+DCllwwUWxKam870tlf4vub1HVOz5rdf3g5kdEtRCpGHe4+F0Us p4h5lGQmdZ6z+VGAo8nVzznVlnHs3A5loW9uoPiL99cLdn5obQ2/r0LVCKTPYjZVGwTuCB4Nj 931mVNP+0ybxzywSRnl6oLNb9qIDRX/ceBbP2rRyOhsIz3BQiEHOCTnQrppKLfEmnnDnj44Wi TvGZNvpZ/Ul3axQHXaGDE2yQ+PauqZU1wbGhMoTzcrdtdmurV4t53jNoj7WPy5EKVzzr2ow91 qVKgjtpYnuuceipOzIgariyOT5lc+0Ctb3HERWvgMILsOwqLEowEIT7EsROYMs/4NmOhzkXKU RnjtjuA8H50h4d7UJOE2mP3H8OUhQo1QtRA+c6yR0WdwwkTIRtRuPE+a4CE7QKGCJ/g46KzU7 horNDFdEtQRmAhOyArs3xv1xlnpQAlVFLhtA7Jnj25uh9ARwqJLJ52bSsqL21C6CJRYPgytYG pExuhzi8WAS4+IwOEJcr6mbwrjfN8QcHvR/n/6HGVIH7Zdulp4l9kAyxQnmCE4LcF6p03Q8n1 zqNNOdlST+PwHfXpU4wsBEd/OLPR5dogQF1RIxxdNTLhNeOh/O7hTeEmK6WgWKZx8ZVvYBuK0 dT5IlRZIfbsniXD3ctIylNcbPdetWkQ0UjgaNYz9AN2i7SNaSUBztnkwVW9idS4Q8tLGtixoa 5G46D5bK+UyE7k2iKQGntVrNrU7XBWBmHvGh0P46nTQHLQSvhPTCXwORfeJOmfzKhl+tyUdf 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:158543 Archived-At: Jonathan Tomer writes: Hi Jonathan, > I thought about checking that the inode number changes, but that > wouldn't have caught this particular bug (where the file is renamed > into place with the correct contents, and then rewritten in place > again); indeed, that doesn't appear to be easily caught with any > examination of the final state alone, since what we're looking for is > to prove the *absence* of any write that fails to change the inode > number. (Perhaps we could check that the modification time of the > file, after write, is *less* than its inode change time, proving that > there has been no ordinary write since the rename -- but in my > experience, inode timestamps are not actually more reliable than > inotify, and in particular this check is easily defeated by the > mode-setting that happens after the write is complete, requiring care > to make sure that save-buffer will not attempt to do so.) I see. But pls keep in mind, that inotify is not the only file notification backend. Currently, we have six different beasts for this. > Best, > Jonathan Best regards, Michael.