Bug 194132
| Summary: | rm(1) is ignoring more errors than it should in rm_tree(..) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base System | Reporter: | Enji Cooper <ngie> |
| Component: | bin | Assignee: | freebsd-bugs (Nobody) <bugs> |
| Status: | New --- | ||
| Severity: | Affects Many People | CC: | bdrewery, jilles |
| Priority: | --- | ||
| Version: | CURRENT | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
| See Also: | https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192490 | ||
So how is this an actual bug? and don't assign me bugs that I have no interest in fixing, The problem here is in fts(3), not in rm(1). If fts_read() aborts the traversal because of a concurrent modification, that is a bug. If a concurrent rm -rf X/Y causes an rm -rf X to abort, this may cause X/Z to escape removal erroneously. A possible fix is to use the pathnames to go back to grandparent directories if opening ".." fails (as with "..", st_dev and st_ino must be checked). A consequence is that the current directory and fts_accpath in the FTS_DP result will be different (fts_accpath will contain a slash, which it normally doesn't if fts is changing directory). Also, this will not work in deep directory trees with pathnames longer than PATH_MAX. |
This code in bin/rm/rm.c catches more errors than it should: 338 if (!fflag && errno) 339 err(1, "fts_read"); 340 fts_close(fts); 341 } In particular, the code will mask errors if fts_read fails with anything other than EACCES, ENOENT, or EPERM according to the intent of -f in rm(1): -f Attempt to remove the files without prompting for confirmation, regardless of the file's permissions. If the file does not exist, do not display a diagnostic message or modify the exit status to reflect an error. The -f option overrides any previous -i options. Please see the related bug for more details.