On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 4:27 PM Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
I think your footnotes have got lost?I don't know if it was lost or not. It's in the bug log at least:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1101025#39
On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 1:06 PM Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 7:51 AM Jens Yllman <jens@yllman.se> wrote:Quick check done. It seems in the past FUSE capabilities were a 32
So, the question is fuse doing this wrong or is gvfs-fuse doing it wrong? >>I don't know. Someone should report the issue to the gvfs maintainers also.
bit bitfield. It was moved to a 64 bit struct, causing an ABI break.
It was handled by the SONAME bump and more importantly the FUSE helper >functions started to use the new bitfield. See the mentioned bitfield >comments [1][2] in the FUSE header. Both say use the FUSE helper
functions fuse_set_feature_flag() and fuse_unset_feature_flag()
instead of accessing internal parts directly.
But then gvfs (even the one in Trixie / Sid) manipulates the old 32
bit bitfield directly [3] (and at other places). Meaning it is a gvfs
bug, a proposed fix is already provided [4].
In very short, gvfs needs to be fixed. I can't do anything on the FUSE side.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 15:24:13 |
Calls: | 10,389 |
Files: | 14,061 |
Messages: | 6,416,911 |