[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 11:48:03 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) |
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
>
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 <=
- 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