-<p>The last few days a new boot system called
-<a href="http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd">systemd</a>
-has been
-<a href="http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html">introduced</a>
-
-to the free software world. I have not yet had time to play around
-with it, but it seem to be a very interesting alternative to
-<a href="http://upstart.ubuntu.com/">upstart</a>, and might prove to be
-a good alternative for Debian when we are able to switch to an event
-based boot system. Tollef is
-<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/580814">in the process</a> of getting
-systemd into Debian, and I look forward to seeing how well it work. I
-like the fact that systemd handles init.d scripts with dependency
-information natively, allowing them to run in parallel where upstart
-at the moment do not.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately do systemd have the same problem as upstart regarding
-platform support. It only work on recent Linux kernels, and also need
-some new kernel features enabled to function properly. This means
-kFreeBSD and Hurd ports of Debian will need a port or a different boot
-system. Not sure how that will be handled if systemd proves to be the
-way forward.</p>
-
-<p>In the mean time, based on the
-<a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/05/msg00122.html">input
-on debian-devel@</a> regarding parallel booting in Debian, I have
-decided to enable full parallel booting as the default in Debian as
-soon as possible (probably this weekend or early next week), to see if
-there are any remaining serious bugs in the init.d dependencies. A
-new version of the sysvinit package implementing this change is
-already in experimental. If all go well, Squeeze will be released
-with parallel booting enabled by default.</p>
+<p>My file system sematics program
+<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Testing_if_a_file_system_can_be_used_for_home_directories___.html">presented
+a few days ago</a> is very useful to verify that a file system can
+work as a unix home directory,and today I had to extend it a bit. I'm
+looking into alternatives for home directory access here at the
+University of Oslo, and one of the options is sshfs. My friend
+Finn-Arne mentioned a while back that they had used sshfs with Debian
+Edu, but stopped because of problems. I asked today what the problems
+where, and he mentioned that sshfs failed to handle umask properly.
+Trying to detect the problem I wrote this addition to my fs testing
+script:</p>
+
+<pre>
+mode_t touch_get_mode(const char *name, mode_t mode) {
+ mode_t retval = 0;
+ int fd = open(name, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_LARGEFILE, mode);
+ if (-1 != fd) {
+ unlink(name);
+ struct stat statbuf;
+ if (-1 != fstat(fd, &statbuf)) {
+ retval = statbuf.st_mode & 0x1ff;
+ }
+ close(fd);
+ }
+ return retval;
+}
+
+/* Try to detect problem discovered using sshfs */
+int test_umask(void) {
+ printf("info: testing umask effect on file creation\n");
+
+ mode_t orig_umask = umask(000);
+ mode_t newmode;
+ if (0666 != (newmode = touch_get_mode("foobar", 0666))) {
+ printf(" error: Wrong file mode %o when creating using mode 666 and umask 000\n",
+ newmode);
+ }
+ umask(007);
+ if (0660 != (newmode = touch_get_mode("foobar", 0666))) {
+ printf(" error: Wrong file mode %o when creating using mode 666 and umask 007\n",
+ newmode);
+ }
+
+ umask (orig_umask);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv) {
+ [...]
+ test_umask();
+ return 0;
+}
+</pre>
+
+<p>Sure enough. On NFS to a netapp, I get this result:</p>
+
+<pre>
+Testing POSIX/Unix sematics on file system
+info: testing symlink creation
+info: testing subdirectory creation
+info: testing fcntl locking
+ Read-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Read-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
+ Unlocking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Write-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Write-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
+ Unlocking 2 byte from 1073741824
+info: testing umask effect on file creation
+</pre>
+
+<p>When mounting the same directory using sshfs, I get this
+result:</p>
+
+<pre>
+Testing POSIX/Unix sematics on file system
+info: testing symlink creation
+info: testing subdirectory creation
+info: testing fcntl locking
+ Read-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Read-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
+ Unlocking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Write-locking 1 byte from 1073741824
+ Write-locking 510 byte from 1073741826
+ Unlocking 2 byte from 1073741824
+info: testing umask effect on file creation
+ error: Wrong file mode 644 when creating using mode 666 and umask 000
+ error: Wrong file mode 640 when creating using mode 666 and umask 007
+</pre>
+
+<p>So, I can conclude that sshfs is better than smb to a Netapp or a
+Windows server, but not good enough to be used as a home
+directory.</p>
+
+<p>Update 2010-08-26: Reported the issue in
+<a href="http://bugs.debian.org/594498">BTS report #594498</a></p>
+
+<p>Update 2010-08-27: Michael Gebetsroither report that he found the
+script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
+<a href="http://github.com/gebi/fs-test">http://github.com/gebi/fs-test</a>.</p>
projects / homepage.git / blobdiff