Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix statfs.Bsize on Darwin #348

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

bolshevik
Copy link

Fixed mapping in FromStatfsT for Darwin, previously it resulted into incorrect reporting of total and free space in the "df" and "du" commands

#275 was fixing incorrectly showing free and available space based on block count. But this number also affects statistics reported by du. Better is to map both to Bsize and then all calculations are correct and there is no need to recalculate block count on the device.

https://opensource.apple.com/source/file_cmds/file_cmds-272.250.1/du/du.c.auto.html
howmany(p->fts_statp->st_blocks, blocksize)

And according to http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/stat.2.html
blkcnt_t st_blocks; /* Number of 512B blocks allocated */

Which creates a mismatch.

Currently:

ls -l
total 4096
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x  1024 *** test
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x     0 *** test2
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x     2 *** test3

du *
2048	test
0	test2
2048	test3

So it thinks, that the file occupies 1 MB or 2048 512B blocks.

After the change:

ls -l
total 4096
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x  1024 *** test
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x     0 *** test2
-rw-r--r--  1 x  x     2 *** test3

du *
8	test
0	test2
8	test3

or 4K each.

It is also a follow up for #213

…incorrect reporting of total and free space in the "df" and "du" commands.
@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@hanwen
Copy link
Owner

hanwen commented Feb 23, 2020

I need a CLA to take your contribution.

@bolshevik
Copy link
Author

@googlebot I signed it!

@googlebot
Copy link
Collaborator

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

@bolshevik
Copy link
Author

bolshevik commented Feb 25, 2020

Thanks for the hint, I do not really want to assign my e-mail address to the commits... I signed the agreement and I am authoring these changes so I am fully fine and grant rights to accept this change and use it in future without any limitations. Thank you for this project!

@hanwen
Copy link
Owner

hanwen commented Feb 25, 2020

could you write a test for the du case ?

Write a file (let's 10240 bytes), syscall.Stat it through FUSE, and then verify that st_blocks is 20 (If I understand correctly).

@bolshevik
Copy link
Author

@hanwen Thank you for the suggestion, sure I can try to correctly test it. But need to better learn the context. Will be keeping this PR updated with new contributions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants