similar to: [Bug 10989] New: "copying unsafe symlink" warning should not occur if file is not changing

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3147 Summary: message 'copying unsafe symlink' only appears if verbose>=2 Product: rsync Version: 2.6.7 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org

Hi, as documented, if you use rsync with --copy-unsafe-links, and copy a directory with a symlink pointing outside of the copied tree, the referent of the symlink is copied. Now, assume that the directory contains a symlink, which points to a (2nd) directory outside of the copied tree. If this (2nd) directory contains another symlink, which also points outside of the copied tree, rsync

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13827 Bug ID: 13827 Summary: despite --copy-unsafe-links, rsync does not copy the referent of symlinks that point one level outside the copied tree Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity:

Hi, New to this list, but long-time (appreciative) user of rsync. Grateful for any help with my problem here... In particular, I've been having long-standing issues (just now getting around to trying to resolve them) when I use rsync with '--copy-unsafe-links' alongside the '--delete' parameter. If I use either of these two parameters in isolation (along with other shared

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11800 Bug ID: 11800 Summary: smarter "safe" symlink detection Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org

Hi list, I would like to understand if, and why, the --unsafe flag is needed when using --copy-storage-all when migrating guests which uses writeback cache mode. Background: I want to live migrate guests with writeback cache from host A to host B and these hosts only have local storage (ie: no shared storage at all). From my understanding, --unsafe should be only required when migrating

Hi, I'm a bit confused about what the '--copy-unsafe-links' option considers the 'source tree'. In the man page it says that for links pointing outside the 'source tree' the file will be copied, but when I try this, for all links pointing outside of the local directory the files are copied even though the links point to files that are in the directory tree that is

This refers to version 3.0.0pre6 if that's relevant. I was expecting that if I specified the --copy-unsafe-links option to rsync that I'd then get no warnings about 'skipping non-regular file "bla/bla/bla"' but it doesn't seem to work like that. It *sounds* from the man page that if I set --copy-unsafe-links then symlinks that point 'elsewhere' will copy the

I presume the option --copy-unsafe-links really means to copy the file contents a symlink points to, even outside the tree being copyed, rather than make a symlink on the destination. What I find is that if a symlink on the source is dangling, that is, it points to nothing that exists, that symlink is not created at the destination. What I want is for all symlinks to be reproduced as symlinks

Hello, I try use rsync from Debian 2.2 (rsync 2.3.2) to mirror Debian distribution tree. in tree is directories dists/potato/main/binary-all/ dists/potato/main/binary-i386/ pool/ In directory dists/potato/main/binary-i386/ is some files symbolic links to ../binary-all/ and some links to ../../../../pool/ In mirror I want preserve links to binary-all/ and copy as files links to pool/. I try

Hello dev, I have a question about unsafe-fp-math function attribute. Currently LLVM merges this attribute for inlining with logical AND. That means if caller has this attribute set but callee has not, LLVM will reset this attribute on caller. But shouldn't we respect this attribute on caller? If caller wants to perform unsafe fp operation, any code that gets inlined should be allowed to do

Hal, Thanks for the reply. I am trying to understand the underlying concern. That means the inlining of a callee without unsafe-fp-math attribute set will block the unsafe optimization in its caller, right? Thanks, Yan From: Finkel, Hal J. [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 11:34 AM To: Yan Luo <yan.luo2 at synopsys.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re:

Hi all, A quick question: The current implementation of the "allow unsafe math" option is to specify it via the TargetOptions object. However, this prevents the target-independent optimizer from using it. Are there any opinions (ha!) on how this could be achieved in a nice clean manner which doesn't require using the TargetOptions object in the optimizer? -bw

Hi all, virsh checks whether a (live) migration is safe or unsafe. When a migration is considered to be unsafe it is rejected unless the --unsafe option is prodivided. As a part of those checks virsh considers the cache settings for the underlying storage resources. In this context only cache="none" is considered to be safe. I wonder why cache="directsync" might be harmfull

Map the HIVEX_OPEN_UNSAFE flag into the libguestfs API and use it in various places. Rich.

Hi Bill, > The current implementation of the "allow unsafe math" option is to specify it via the TargetOptions object. However, this prevents the target-independent optimizer from using it. Are there any opinions (ha!) on how this could be achieved in a nice clean manner which doesn't require using the TargetOptions object in the optimizer? a flag on each floating point

On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> A quick question: >> >> The current implementation of the "allow unsafe math" option is to specify it via the TargetOptions object. However, this prevents the target-independent optimizer from using it.

Hello Samba folks, A couple years ago I installed Samba 2.2.0 on our HP9000 running hpux 10.20. I am now trying to install it on a customer's HP9000 and am getting the error "No locking available. Running Samba would be unsafe" while executing the configure command. I got that error a couple years ago and resolved it by linking /usr/bin/cc and /opt/ansic/bin/cc but that is not

I think I share the goal with you to make the foundation for better dead-strip, so thank you for suggesting. I'm not sure if marking a section as a whole as "safe" or "unsafe" is the best approach, though. Some comments. - If the compiler generated code is always "safe", and if we can distinguish it from hand-written assembly code by checking if there's a

CentOS-6.2 We moved a cron job from a CentOS-5.7 host to a CentOS-6.2 host. The MAILTO variable is set to support at harte-lyne.ca in both instances. On the CentOS-6 host instead of receiving the mail with the output we see this in /var/log/cron instead: Mar 12 14:49:01 inet09 CROND[6639]: (cron theheart) UNSAFE (support at harte-lyne.ca ) The CentOS-5 host uses Sendmail as the MTA, the