From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7351C54E4A for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CBB206A3 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="VpRj226S" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 71CBB206A3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYWCT-000350-0h; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:48:05 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYWCS-00034v-Cu for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:48:04 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: 94d13d68-945f-11ea-a2c0-12813bfff9fa Received: from esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.145.153]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 94d13d68-945f-11ea-a2c0-12813bfff9fa; Tue, 12 May 2020 14:48:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1589294884; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jVjRbiYFDETmm85nMp64hRUUwpS0KFOXOZJIum9tDOM=; b=VpRj226SmuSgbbkyc8wkJ0QCH6F0JNfiUsAv7TqionBywCl0ukMglL7t f6hJm4M4nT+cOUdiRpPRAUzTkXX2a5ua8YSlA6I6/fQZqerX7rHFJ9bYB 28Ms0+fgOLCOxyvrCRF/fGCW9w4I6wfHjCCJsRf+tPA4MZDGTVFZZz4JR Q=; Received-SPF: None (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of andrew.cooper3@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="andrew.cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Authentication-Results: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) d=citrix.com IronPort-SDR: x+LMrm/A+JJLmLQzg+ujblcMvjaQmSsyIHvKNhEa5f99tijtFf2LUNrQ51fcwND+MkO3tYrSEo u2ZoXs3zsAkxnbeiPO5GhagHiVEF2hlLeJliKo6seBnZghzDHvnWXEHXcDbuLvUwxpb2V73yGk hAb90R+ng0ORnk7K9MO1SS4PywzFXgM85++PFGd+6kf5Yltq/3vpvDwnT3z0F4dt2emYDQ4bNU bt0xLRQ3g55ZC/kY4TVG35DS3hNlRULCTe667GVEevdasSUhl5GHb6HPTi65wqHNYXGCCSm3As u94= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 17347226 X-Ironport-Server: esa2.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,384,1583211600"; d="scan'208";a="17347226" Subject: Re: use of "stat -" To: Jan Beulich , Wei Liu References: <3bfd6384-fcaf-c74a-e560-a35aafa06a43@suse.com> <20200512141947.yqx4gmbvqs4grx5g@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2.j3c5onc20sse1dnehy4noqpfcg.zx.internal.cloudapp.net> From: Andrew Cooper Message-ID: <4b90b635-84bb-e827-d52e-dfe1ebdb4e4d@citrix.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:47:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , Jason Andryuk , Ian Jackson , Paul Durrant Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On 12/05/2020 15:33, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.05.2020 16:19, Wei Liu wrote: >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:58:46PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> now that I've been able to do a little bit of work from the office >>> again, I've run into a regression from b72682c602b8 "scripts: Use >>> stat to check lock claim". On one of my older machines I've noticed >>> guests wouldn't launch anymore, which I've tracked down to the >>> system having an old stat on it. Yes, the commit says the needed >>> behavior has been available since 2009, but please let's not forget >>> that we continue to support building with tool chains from about >>> 2007. >>> >>> Putting in place and using newer tool chain versions without >>> touching the base distro is pretty straightforward. Replacing the >>> coreutils package isn't, and there's not even an override available >>> by which one could point at an alternative one. Hence I think >>> bumping the minimum required versions of basic tools should be >>> done even more carefully than bumping required tool chain versions >>> (which we've not dared to do in years). After having things >>> successfully working again with a full revert, I'm now going to >>> experiment with adapting behavior to stat's capabilities. Would >>> something like that be acceptable (if it works out)? >> Are you asking for reverting that patch? > Well, I assume the patch has its merits, even if I don't really > understand what they are from its description. What is in any away unclear about the final paragraph in the commit message? > I'm instead asking > whether something like the below (meanwhile tested) would be > acceptable. Not really, seeing as removing perl was the whole point. ~Andrew