Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 19:23:36 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 253278] x11-servers/xorg-server: Lock file: Various fixes Message-ID: <bug-253278-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D253278 Bug ID: 253278 Summary: x11-servers/xorg-server: Lock file: Various fixes Product: Ports & Packages Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: Individual Port(s) Assignee: x11@FreeBSD.org Reporter: olivier.freebsd@free.fr Assignee: x11@FreeBSD.org Flags: maintainer-feedback?(x11@FreeBSD.org) Created attachment 222190 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D222190&action= =3Dedit Patch against the ports tree Several fixes: 1. Create a lock file in the case of an explicitly requested display even if "-displayfd" was specified. This is because, in this case, the server creat= ion process is essentially the same as when "-displayfd" is not specified. The = only difference with the latter case should be that Xorg outputs the passed disp= lay to the display FD (only the display selection logic is bypassed). 2. Properly indicate an unexpected problem with link(2), instead of assuming that a failure always means that the file indeed exists. 3. Workaround for what appears to be a FreeBSD bug (link returns EPERM when hard linking a file whose permissions are the result of creating a file in a directory with sticky bit, although creating a separate copy is perfectly possible). Additional benefit: Simplifies the cumbersome logic, which on PO= SIX systems is unnecessary IMHO (initial lock file creation with O_EXCL is enou= gh to ensure mutual exclusion). Again I'm submitting this here, since upstream seems inactive. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-253278-7141>