tail -f: handle "-"/stdin once again

* src/tail.c (main) [HAVE_INOTIFY]: When stdin (i.e., "-", or no args,
but not /dev/stdin) is specified on the command line, don't use inotify.
Reported by Bill Brelsford in <http://bugs.debian.org/545422>.
* tests/tail-2/follow-stdin: New file.  Test for this.
* tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Add the test.
* NEWS (Bug fixes): Mention it.
This bug was introduced in coreutils-7.5 via commit ae494d4b,
2009-06-02, "tail: use inotify if it is available".
This commit is contained in:
Jim Meyering 2009-09-07 08:37:08 +02:00
parent 15f26e296b
commit cdfb703c5d
5 changed files with 65 additions and 1 deletions

9
NEWS
View File

@ -31,6 +31,15 @@ GNU coreutils NEWS -*- outline -*-
Before, this would print nothing and wait: stdbuf -o 4K tail -f /etc/passwd
Note that this bug affects tail -f only when its standard output is buffered,
which is relatively unusual.
[bug introduced in coreutils-7.5]
tail -f once again works with standard input. inotify-enabled tail -f
would fail when operating on a nameless stdin. I.e., tail -f < /etc/passwd
would say "tail: cannot watch `-': No such file or directory", yet the
relatively baroque tail -f /dev/stdin < /etc/passwd would work. Now, the
offending usage causes tail to revert to its conventional sleep-based
(i.e., not inotify-based) implementation.
[bug introduced in coreutils-7.5]
** New features

1
THANKS
View File

@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ Bernhard Rosenkraenzer bero@redhat.de
Bernhard Voelker bernhard.voelker@siemens-enterprise.com
Bert Deknuydt Bert.Deknuydt@esat.kuleuven.ac.be
Bert Wesarg bert.wesarg@googlemail.com
Bill Brelsford wb@k2di.net
Bill Peters peters@gaffel.as.arizona.edu
Bjorn Helgaas helgaas@rsn.hp.com
Bob McCracken kerouac@ravenet.com

View File

@ -1982,7 +1982,19 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
if (forever)
{
#if HAVE_INOTIFY
if (!disable_inotify)
/* If the user specifies stdin via a command line argument of "-",
or implicitly by providing no arguments, we won't use inotify.
Technically, on systems with a working /dev/stdin, we *could*,
but would it be worth it? Verifying that it's a real device
and hooked up to stdin is not trivial, while reverting to
non-inotify-based tail_forever is easy and portable. */
bool stdin_cmdline_arg = false;
for (i = 0; i < n_files; i++)
if (STREQ (file[i], "-"))
stdin_cmdline_arg = true;
if (!disable_inotify && !stdin_cmdline_arg)
{
int wd = inotify_init ();
if (wd < 0)

View File

@ -428,6 +428,7 @@ TESTS = \
tail-2/assert-2 \
tail-2/big-4gb \
tail-2/flush-initial \
tail-2/follow-stdin \
tail-2/proc-ksyms \
tail-2/start-middle \
touch/dangling-symlink \

41
tests/tail-2/follow-stdin Executable file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
#!/bin/sh
# tail -f - would fail with the initial inotify implementation
# Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
if test "$VERBOSE" = yes; then
set -x
tail --version
fi
. $srcdir/test-lib.sh
echo line > exp || framework_failure
echo line > in || framework_failure
fail=0
timeout 1 tail -f < in > out 2> err
# tail from coreutils-7.5 would fail
test $? = 124 || fail=1
# Ensure there was no error output.
test -s err && fail=1
# Ensure there was
compare out exp || fail=1
Exit $fail