apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "D.J. Heap" <djh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Adjust more_finfo() on Win32 to behave more like its Unix/Linux counterpart
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:49:09 GMT
On 2/10/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> In case we are less than clear here,
> from apr's getfileinfo, stat, lstat and readdir API, the system is to return
> only those components listed in the 'wanted' argument and those that come
> FOR FREE.  If processing time would increase, to retrieve 'unwanted' info, then
> those will not be marked as not retrieved.

Ok, the issue was that permissions were asked for but never actually
queried causing the 'incomplete' returns.  Old APR failed even earlier
because it did not pass READ_CONTROL on open, but then it went on to
'guess' based on the readonly file attribute.

> ANY PLATFORM may refuse to provide information that it can't obtain.  Therefore
> APR_EINCOMPLETE will signal missing bits from the 'wanted' mask that aren't
> present in the ->valid results.


> I need to review the proposed changes carefully, but be warned I will veto any
> change which 'makes up' answers that don't correspond to the true values of
> these fields.  APR isn't cygwin, no results are 'invented' here.  They all
> correspond to true data or they are not returned at all.

Sure...it looks like the ACL -> permission mapping is fairly close,
though.  To me, anyway.

> Sure, there's a source code tarball.  Feel free to build.
> Most users need to run Apache 2.2.0 + patches, and even on win32 apply
> additional build patches, so mirroring the 2.2.0 tarball with a broken
> binary wasn't high on my priority list.  Releasing the next apr, apr-util
> and httpd IS high on my priority list, which is why I'd spent so much time
> in the past two weeks on bugs.

Ah, good to know, thanks!

> Glad this one 'resurfaced' during my bugzilla review :)  I'll investigate.

Great, thanks!


View raw message