Previously, despite having a boolean that tracked initialization, the
decode characters have been "calculated" every single time a base64
string was being decoded.
With this change we only initialize the decode array once in a
thread-safe manner.
Otherwise I get a compiler error when building for NetBSD:
src/libutil/util.cc: In function 'void nix::_deletePath(const Path&, uint64_t&)':
src/libutil/util.cc:438:17: error: base operand of '->' is not a pointer
438 | AutoCloseFD dirfd(open(dir.c_str(), O_RDONLY));
| ^~~~~
src/libutil/util.cc:439:10: error: 'dirfd' was not declared in this scope
439 | if (!dirfd) {
| ^~~~~
src/libutil/util.cc:444:17: error: 'dirfd' was not declared in this scope
444 | _deletePath(dirfd.get(), path, bytesFreed);
| ^~~~~
When you have a symlink like:
/tmp -> ./private/tmp
you need to resolve ./private/tmp relative to /tmp’s dir: ‘/’. Unlike
any other path output by dirOf, / ends with a slash. We don’t want
trailing slashes here since we will append another slash in the next
comoponent, so clear s like we would if it was a symlink to an absoute
path.
This should fix at least part of the issue in
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/4822, will need confirmation that
it actually fixes the problem to close though.
Introduced in f3f228700a.
If there were many top-level goals (which are not destroyed until the
very end), commands like
$ nix copy --to 'ssh://localhost?remote-store=/tmp/nix' \
/run/current-system --no-check-sigs --substitute-on-destination
could fail with "Too many open files". So now we do some explicit
cleanup from amDone(). It would be cleaner to separate goals from
their temporary internal state, but that would be a bigger refactor.
I tested a trivial program that called kill(-1, SIGKILL), which was
run as the only process for an unpriveleged user, on Linux and
FreeBSD. On Linux, kill reported success, while on FreeBSD it failed
with EPERM.
POSIX says:
> If pid is -1, sig shall be sent to all processes (excluding an
> unspecified set of system processes) for which the process has
> permission to send that signal.
and
> The kill() function is successful if the process has permission to
> send sig to any of the processes specified by pid. If kill() fails,
> no signal shall be sent.
and
> [EPERM]
> The process does not have permission to send the signal to any
> receiving process.
My reading of this is that kill(-1, ...) may fail with EPERM when
there are no other processes to kill (since the current process is
ignored). Since kill(-1, ...) only attempts to kill processes the
user has permission to kill, it can't mean that we tried to do
something we didn't have permission to kill, so it should be fine to
interpret EPERM the same as success here for any POSIX-compliant
system.
This fixes an issue that Mic92 encountered[1] when he tried to review a
Nixpkgs PR on FreeBSD.
[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/81459#issuecomment-606073668
