From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id BCB0E3858C55; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:08:04 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BCB0E3858C55 From: "mark at klomp dot org" To: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug debuginfod/29022] 000-permissions files cause problems for backups Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 22:08:04 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: elfutils X-Bugzilla-Component: debuginfod X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at klomp dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Elfutils-devel mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 22:08:04 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29022 Mark Wielaard changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mark at klomp dot org --- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard --- Theoretically you can have a totally empty source files, but they are pretty useless and they won't even leave any debug (DWARF) data (except for an emp= ty line table and compiler options string), so since there is no DWARF referen= ce to the source file it won't even be requested by any debuginfod consumer. executables and debug files are ELF so are never zero size. So I think it might make some sense to investigate whether we can use the f= act that a file is zero size as negative cache indicator. It would also get rid= of the "root is special" case. At least I cannot imagine we really want to ever return a zero sized file. = But I might not have big enough imagination. There is always some theoretically possibility that there is a legitimate request for a zero sized file in the future. But do we really need to worry about that? Does it prevent some fut= ure extensions? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=