Web lists-archives.com

Re: libgparted bug.




On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 17:07:03 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 11 February 2018 15:31:13 Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 11:08:23 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Sunday 11 February 2018 10:19:16 David Wright wrote:

> > > > […] Otherwise, look to your DE configuration. […]

> > > I will no doubt make an enemy here, but at 83, I've had the great
> > > good fortune to have outlived the only real one I ever had.
> > >
> > > I am running out of patience with your attitude David. If I want to
> > > bring […]
> >
> > > running gparted that ought to have a lock on it but doesn't, with
> > > its criminally pisspoor error reporting NOT telling you why the
> > > operation failed. Nothing could be done. It took me 3 damned days to
> > > decide to "save the details" when it failed, then wade thru a
> > > kilobyte of html in the resultant file, to discover that the
> > > partition gparted had just UNMOUNTED, was being autoMOUNTed by some
> > > other helpful utility before I could click thru the menu's and ask
> > > it to start the partition shrink I asked it to do, and all this BS
> > > is just me trying to run down and terminate those OTHER utilities
> > > long enough for me to get that job done.
> >
> > > So if you cannot contribute something helpfull David, and its
> > > extremely obvious to me that YOU do NOT understand the problem, then
> > > just quit trying to confuse the issue, and the rest of this lists
> > > readers.
> >
> > Which problem? Nobody but you has thrown 60-persistent-storage.rules
> > and usbmount into the mix and taken a side-swipe at gparted at the
> > same time. Not with any great justification, IMO.
> >
> Plenty of justification IMNSHO.  If I launch a root session of gparted, 
> giving it the device name as a command line argument, gparted should 
> claim ownership of the storage device and anything else that comes 
> snooping around should rightfully be told to go pound sand.

Another disclaimer: I don't use gparted (unless it's built into the
installer, in which case I have unwittingly used it) but fdisk and
gdisk as appropriate.

When you run those programs, they don't AFAICT claim ownership of the
device. You can happily run two instances of them without any problem,
though I haven't tested what happens with the second if you change the
partition table with the first (and the kernel rescans it).

Are you expecting a lock file to be created by fdisk and gdisk?
Even if you could "protect" the device with the partitioning
program, as soon as you exit it, there's a race condition between
your fingers/mouseclicks and the automounter, which the latter is
likely to win.

So my advice remains disable/uninstall the automounter and check
your DE options.

YAD (yet another disclaimer):
In looking through automounting issues on this list, I happened upon
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00857.html
Regardless of the topic in (1), paragraphs (2) and (3) might make
a good signature for some of my posts.

> Throw in the 
> fact that unless you want to read its logs for failures, you need to do 
> it with a web browser. I don't know about you, but where I learned 
> programming, you read the logs with a text reader. And some of my 
> programs were so well checked there was nothing left to log. The need 
> for a log is to me, sloppy coding. But we no longer write our RCA-1802 
> code by looking up the memonic in the programmers manual and use that to 
> convert our source code into hex to be entered in a hex monitor.  That 
> code, and the machine I built to execute it, turned out to be so usefull 
> at KRCR-tv in Redding CA, that it was still in daily use 15 years later, 
> in the summer of 1994. That code was heavily self modifying, never 
> crashed that I know of once I said it was ready. So don't lecture me on 
> quality code.

And my anecdote (also OT):

Having done the steps in (bump, bump)
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/02/msg00466.html
(which might be too uncommon (mixing FAT and LUKS) or too technical
for this list), one instance of Windows10 (and only one) keeps
pestering with this drive about wanting to format F: (E: is the NTFS
filesystem). The only way to stop it is not to answer; just leave the
dialog box hidden underneath the normal windows. Dangerous, I know,
as one might accidentally click it after closing all the other windows.

But it made me think about whether you could stop the automounter by
setting a peculiar partition type on the device. Probably not; ho hum…

Cheers,
David.