www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5243] New: dmd -run potentially removes user files

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243

           Summary: dmd -run potentially removes user files
           Product: D
           Version: D1 & D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: critical
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: llucax gmail.com



PST ---
See this example:

$ mkdir x
$ echo 'void main() {}' > x/test.d
$ echo "my very important data that shouldn't be ereased" > test
$ ls test 
test
$ cat test
my very important data that shouldn't be ereased
$ dmd -run x/test.d 
$ ls test
ls: cannot access test: No such file or directory
$ cat test
cat: test: No such file or directory

I think this is a very serious bug. It's really unexpected that DMD removes the
test file (I can understand why it happens, but it shouldn't). test.d being in
another directory is just to point how much surprising could be that running a
"script" in an unrelated directory removes files in the current directory.

If DMD wants to put D in the scripting world, this should be fixed ASAP, as no
scripting language EVER will remove your files unexpectedly.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 19 2010
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




12:35:00 PST ---
Created an attachment (id=1170)
patch

Possible patch added. I don't have a Posix build system to test it, and there
should be a test-script (possibly in shell) to verify it works ok.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




2013-01-07 10:46:33 PST ---


 Created an attachment (id=1170) [details]
 patch
 
 Possible patch added. I don't have a Posix build system to test it, and there
 should be a test-script (possibly in shell) to verify it works ok.


Can you convert this into a pull request? It will make reviewing more easy.

I can write the test case based on the one in the report.

All your changes are POSIX only, is the overwriting not happening on Windows?

Also, is extremely unlikely, but you can still overwrite unintended files, a
check to avoid overwriting anything should be done, but maybe that's much
harder to do because you have to change how the file is opened, not just the
filename.

Finally, any reason for declaring getuid() manually instead of including the
appropriate headers?

Thanks for addressing this issue!

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




12:31:42 PST ---


 Can you convert this into a pull request? It will make reviewing more easy.


I'll do it later tonight.


 All your changes are POSIX only, is the overwriting not happening on Windows?


No because executables on win32 always end with .exe. Even if you do "dmd
-oftest", DMD will still append an .exe .


 Finally, any reason for declaring getuid() manually instead of including the
 appropriate headers?


The DMC header is unistd.h, but the front-end is also used by GDC and LDC, I
don't know which headers they use for this function. It seemed easiest to just
declare the function rather than to include an entire header (remember that
includes are costly for compile-times in C++).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




13:14:03 PST ---
Here, have fun with it, I don't have the means to test this on posix:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1437

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




2013-01-08 07:31:29 PST ---




 Can you convert this into a pull request? It will make reviewing more easy.


 
 I'll do it later tonight.


Thanks!


 All your changes are POSIX only, is the overwriting not happening on Windows?


 
 No because executables on win32 always end with .exe. Even if you do "dmd
 -oftest", DMD will still append an .exe .


But you can accidentally overwrite another .exe file, maybe something you
compiled before and now you want to do some temporary test without overwriting
that file? I know it looks unlikely, but I think -run should never overwrite
any files.

Anyway, your patch is certainly a progress :)


 Finally, any reason for declaring getuid() manually instead of including the
 appropriate headers?


 
 The DMC header is unistd.h, but the front-end is also used by GDC and LDC, I
 don't know which headers they use for this function. It seemed easiest to just
 declare the function rather than to include an entire header (remember that
 includes are costly for compile-times in C++).


POSIX says it is in unistd.h, so I guess we can trust different platforms to
provide it in that header :)

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695299/functions/getuid.html

I will add these comments to the pull request too, just for convenience.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




08:34:15 PST ---


 But you can accidentally overwrite another .exe file




I don't know of any compilers which warn you against this (it should probably
be part of a build tool), I thought the enhancement was for when you can
accidentally overwrite files which were not generated by the compiler (data
files with no extension on posix, for example).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243


Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ibuclaw ubuntu.com







 Can you convert this into a pull request? It will make reviewing more easy.


 
 I'll do it later tonight.
 

 All your changes are POSIX only, is the overwriting not happening on Windows?


 
 No because executables on win32 always end with .exe. Even if you do "dmd
 -oftest", DMD will still append an .exe .
 

 Finally, any reason for declaring getuid() manually instead of including the
 appropriate headers?


 
 The DMC header is unistd.h, but the front-end is also used by GDC and LDC, I
 don't know which headers they use for this function. It seemed easiest to just
 declare the function rather than to include an entire header (remember that
 includes are costly for compile-times in C++).


GDC ifdef's pretty much all of mars.c, so this doesn't affect me.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 08 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5243




2013-01-08 09:07:05 PST ---




 But you can accidentally overwrite another .exe file




 
 I don't know of any compilers which warn you against this (it should probably
 be part of a build tool), I thought the enhancement was for when you can
 accidentally overwrite files which were not generated by the compiler (data
 files with no extension on posix, for example).


And I'm not suggesting for DMD to check that when compiling normally. The thing
is -run, to the user, is perceived as not generating any files, so it's really
unexpected if any file gets removed after running dmd -run somescript.d.

Specially if dmd want to be taken seriously in the scripting world.

But maybe Alex Rønne Petersen is right, dmd -run is an incomplete feature and
maybe it should be removed altogether because it might be too hard to do it
right and there is already rdmd.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 08 2013