bin/144411: [patch] mtree(8) doesn't reject non-regular files for -X

Garrett Cooper gcooper at
Sun Aug 29 10:55:26 UTC 2010

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper at> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Bruce Evans <brde at> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Bruce Evans wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>    I'm not 100% satisfied with this patch now. Looking back it fails
>>>>> the following case:
>>>>>     -P    Do not follow symbolic links in the file hierarchy, instead
>>>>> con-
>>>>>           sider the symbolic link itself in any comparisons.  This is the
>>>>>           default.
>>>> -P should have the same semantics and description in all utilities.  The
>>>> description should not have grammar errors like the above (comma splice).
>>>> ...
>>>> I now see that the grammar error is from the original version of mtree(1),
>>>> and is probably one of the things you don't like.  mtree also has -L, but
>>>> not -R or -P or -h.  It is not clear how any utility that traverses trees
>>>> can work without a full complement of -[HLPR] or how any utility that
>>>> ...
>>> Looking at the actual patch, I now see that it is about a completely
>>> different problem.  You would only need to understand the amount of
>>> brokenness of -P to see if you need to use lstat().  I think -P is so
>>> broken that mtree on symlinks doesn't work at all and not using lstat()
>>> would be safest.
>> Hmmm... so I take it that this is actually the first step in many to
>> fixing this underlying problem? I suppose I should be opening bugs for
>> all of the itemized issues that you see in mtree(8) so someone can
>> submit patches to fix the utility?
>>> The patch has some style bugs.
>> Please expound on this -- I want to improve my style (without having
>> to rewrite the entire program of course) -- so that it conforms more
>> to the projects overall style rules; of course there are some cases
>> where I can't readily do that (like pkg_install -- ugh), but I'll do
>> my best to make sure that the rules are withheld.
>    Just for the record, here's the latest patch that I submitted to
> Bruce for this PR.

Dog gone it; attached the wrong patch. This is the right patch..
-------------- next part --------------
Index: excludes.c
--- excludes.c	(revision 211961)
+++ excludes.c	(working copy)
@@ -30,9 +30,10 @@
 #include <sys/cdefs.h>
+#include <sys/queue.h>
+#include <sys/stat.h>
+#include <sys/time.h>		/* XXX for mtree.h */
 #include <sys/types.h>
-#include <sys/time.h>		/* XXX for mtree.h */
-#include <sys/queue.h>
 #include <err.h>
 #include <fnmatch.h>
@@ -63,11 +64,18 @@
 read_excludes_file(const char *name)
+	struct stat exclude_stat;
+	struct exclude *e;
 	FILE *fp;
 	char *line, *str;
-	struct exclude *e;
 	size_t len;
+	/* Make sure that `name' points to a real file. */
+	if (stat(name, &exclude_stat) != 0)
+		err(EXIT_FAILURE, "stat: %s", name);
+	if (!S_ISREG(exclude_stat.st_mode))
+		errx(EXIT_FAILURE, "invalid exclude file: %s", name);
 	fp = fopen(name, "r");
 	if (fp == 0)
 		err(1, "%s", name);

More information about the freebsd-bugs mailing list