[Pkg-clamav-devel] Uploading 0.98.7+dfsg-4

[Scott Kitterman]

On November 8, 2015 9:06:51 AM EST, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian at breakpoint.cc> wrote:
>On 2015-10-26 21:49:03 [+0100], Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
>Hi Andreas,
>
>> On 25.10.2015 21:58, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> >> I can't think of a good solution for this problem.
>> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11460
>
>This has been fixed in glibc 2.23. We have 2.21 in exp.
>
>> > But this is not helping.
>> 
>> It's not helping yet, anyway.
>
>Maybe it is :)
>
>> > I haven't been looking at it but wouldn't it work to replace fts
>with
>> > ftw()? I mean have no idea what upstream plans to do but if it just
>> > about browsing via a directory ftw() should be good enough :)
>> 
>> Using ftw instead of fts might work.
>> Currently fts seems to be only used in onas_ht_add_hierarchy.
>
>This code is new and I would call fast written. The error handling
>is:
>		hnode = onas_hashnode_init();
>		if (!hnode) return CL_EMEM;
>
>hardly existing since fts_close() wasn't called on that one. Or for
>some
>reason not abvious to me it is not required.
>
>That said I hacked up something that is half way done i.e. not complete
>or tested.  I used nftw() and a mutex() since the function passed to
>nftw() can't have a private argument and I kind of need it for struct
>onas_ht *ht. And after seeing that thing above I was thinking about
>pulling in fts() from glibc to remain bug compatible with upstream. And
>then I was thinking about stable + oldstable and the amount of
>non-upstream
>code we are pushing there I was thinking:
>	HEY! What about disabling FANOTIFY which disables this feature
>	and we don't have to worry about this and we enable it once
>	glibc 2.23 hits unstable?
>
>Any thoughts on this? We should react soon I think since we need to
>pass
>the new queue.

Glibc 2.21 will be in unstable soon at which point 2.22 will go to Experimental.  I understand the release date for 2.23 is undetermined.  Is the glibc change something that could be back ported?

I would seriously like to avoid disabling fanotify , since that would be a regression and I know people use the feature.

Scott K