[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity
From: |
Kenneth Loafman |
Subject: |
Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1] |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:26:24 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
Tell him to upgrade to 0.5.11. Easier than upgrading NcFTP.
If he's using FTP, have him apply the very short patch at:
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25838
He'll need that if he has network errors. I thought auto-resume
defaulted to 'on', I should have checked further. The patch forces it
on no matter what the default.
Or wait till .12, probably Sunday or so.
It's always something!
...Ken
address@hidden wrote:
> Perfect .. so the ftplicity user should either upgrade duplicity or
> ncftp ... sky all clear ..
>
> regards ede
> --
>
>> I don't need to re-implement it... ncftpput is not used anymore, so no
>> need to check for it. As far as I know, ncftp itself never had this
>> problem, just the utility.
>>
>> ...Ken
>>
>> address@hidden wrote:
>>
>>> I see .. exactly the versions I missed ;) .. so your going to implement
>>> it again?
>>> What about a nice error message explaining the matter?
>>>
>>> ..ede
>>> --
>>>
>>>> The check is only in 0.5.06, .07, .08, it was taken out in 0.5.09
>>>> when I
>>>> changed to using ncftp directly, rather than ncftpput/get/ls. The
>>>> check
>>>> was only intended to protect against ncftpput 3.2.0, but they all come
>>>> as a group, so it affects all of the group.
>>>>
>>>> We're up to .11, with .12 coming out next week or so.
>>>>
>>>> ...Ken
>>>>
>>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it says
>>>>>
>>>>> NcFTPLs 3.2.0
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe a letter case difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> ..ede
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That was fixed in v0.5.07, so maybe you're running an earlier
>>>>>> version?
>>>>>> If not, then what does the first line of 'ncftpls -v' say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do the safe thing, verify everything. Most folks do not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry to be persistent on it ... finally it is your decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just to be clear. Because at some point in time ncftp 3.2.0
>>>>>>> segfaulted,
>>>>>>> this gives a hint that it was badly programmed and every data
>>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>> might get corrupted without somebody noticing it?
>>>>>>> Again mine is also 3.2.0 so why is it not banned? Ok I know that
>>>>>>> everything is fione because I verify every backup. But still.
>>>>>>> Shouldn't
>>>>>>> it be banned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..ede
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Short answer, yes, sort of. It won't harm the system, but it may
>>>>>>>> harm
>>>>>>>> the program, or the data it generates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A segfault is an errant memory read/write to memory outside the
>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>> itself, i.e. it tries to read/write to a system area, or into
>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>> program. If this errant read/write is to a legitimate location
>>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>>> the program itself, you can get stack or data corruption, which is
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> hard to find, and annoying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This location can change when, for example, the compiler is
>>>>>>>> different or
>>>>>>>> even when the compile options are different. Different distro's
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> different versions of the compiler, sometimes change the options
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the author used, gen for 32-bit and 64-bit, any number of
>>>>>>>> changes can
>>>>>>>> move the target address, and move the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I know that I have a program that may segfault in one
>>>>>>>> environment,
>>>>>>>> then I know that I have a program that may corrupt data in another
>>>>>>>> environment. Its best not to trust to luck in an application that
>>>>>>>> serves a backup program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That said, I take back what I wrote earlier (entirely too much
>>>>>>>> blood in
>>>>>>>> my caffeine stream). The check should stay in for that particular
>>>>>>>> version, and it is better to ask the user to upgrade.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...Ken
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do I understand correctly that a segfault might compromise the
>>>>>>>>> systems
>>>>>>>>> stability or affect other programs running on the same machine? In
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> case I totally agree with you ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ..ede
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure that A was the right choice, but we're past that now.
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> easily removed if you just remove the check in ftpbackend.py, so
>>>>>>>>>> maybe a
>>>>>>>>>> patch could be issued to remove the check, or maybe just issue a
>>>>>>>>>> warning
>>>>>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tend to err towards caution in handling errors. A segfault may
>>>>>>>>>> not be
>>>>>>>>>> generated if the memory modified is not executed, but could
>>>>>>>>>> produce bad
>>>>>>>>>> data output instead, so unless I know the version has been
>>>>>>>>>> fixed, and
>>>>>>>>>> not just compiled differently, I would not really trust it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...Ken
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for this overview ... very interesting in every detail
>>>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your comments ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A) If ncftp 3.2.0 raises an error, but not always, why
>>>>>>>>>>> blocking by
>>>>>>>>>>> version and not by issuing the segfault or whatever error? E.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> case of the ftplicity user from the bug list... He used
>>>>>>>>>>> ftplicity/duplicity happily until now the new version refuses to
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>> with a obviously working ncftp version.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> B) You explained that a version string is compared, so the
>>>>>>>>>>> question on
>>>>>>>>>>> put with list-files is obsolete :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, I agree totally ... Dogmatic Rules are for people
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> refuse development. Usually they don't last long .... Said
>>>>>>>>>>> that, why
>>>>>>>>>>> force somebody to upgrade, if there is only a chance of an error
>>>>>>>>>>> occuring but no certainty. This is like trying to keep children
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> danger. Impossible ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... ede
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PS: I really love the phrase of your french teacher :))
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kenneth Loafman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> address@hidden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a suspicion there may be differences in the distro's,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bug fixes, some not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does duplicity detect the faulty version? Or does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> detect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fault itself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fault itself would be a segfault, so no, we don't do
>>>>>>>>>>>> that. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> runs
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ncftp command and looks for the version string.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But then, why does the list command issue a ftp put command?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that one. It should not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..qeustions over questions ..ede
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Back in the dawn of history, duplicity used ftplib.py for
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ftp. This was impossible to maintain because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintainers of
>>>>>>>>>>>> ftplib.py preferred standardization over functionality. They
>>>>>>>>>>>> treated
>>>>>>>>>>>> the RFC's as gospel and anyone who's been around ftp long
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> grows
>>>>>>>>>>>> to know that ftp servers are only 'mostly' standard. I chose
>>>>>>>>>>>> NcFTP
>>>>>>>>>>>> because I had never had it fail to work on any server I
>>>>>>>>>>>> targeted. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> chose functionality over standardization. A note - do a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'strings' on
>>>>>>>>>>>> NcFTP and you will find where they detect the problem FTP
>>>>>>>>>>>> servers and
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is something any ftp client needs to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 2nd incarnation of the ftp backend used the ncftpget/put/ls
>>>>>>>>>>>> utilities rather than the ncftp command directly. After much
>>>>>>>>>>>> success
>>>>>>>>>>>> with pexpect driving ssh, and many problems with various
>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncftp utilities, I decided to drive ncftp directly with pexpect
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>> use the utilities for anything at all. I made the mistake of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>> that if ncftp was so solid, then the utilities would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> solid as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the 3rd incarnation of the ftp backend. This one still
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, I'm sure, but those are being ironed out. Unless
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone can
>>>>>>>>>>>> prove to me that they have a better functioning ftp server or
>>>>>>>>>>>> library, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think we have finally found the functionality and robustness we
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> going forwards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting really tired of fixing bugs against a flaky
>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> should have died years ago. It wastes too much time. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>> things like French that I don't like to mess with. As my
>>>>>>>>>>>> French
>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>> said on the day after it was too late to drop, "Throw away the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules,
>>>>>>>>>>>> now we're going to learn French.". FTP is like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...Ken
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>> address@hidden
>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Duplicity-talk mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], (continued)
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], Kenneth Loafman, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1], edgar . soldin, 2009/03/12
- Re: [Duplicity-talk] [ ftplicity-Bugs-2684345 ] Traceback with duplicity 0.5.06-2~bpo40+1],
Kenneth Loafman <=