Red Hat rsync - 'sign' patch

Hardy Merrill hmerrill at
Sat Jun 14 00:44:44 EST 2003

jw schultz [jw at] wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:56:34PM -0400, Hardy Merrill wrote:
> > AFAICT, back in the vicinity of January 2002, a patch
> > (call this patch 'A') was developed to close an 'rsync
> > remote hole' - the patch switched variables in
> > 'sum_struct' to size_t.  According to some documentation
> > I have read, that patch itself introduced some comparisons
> > between signed and unsigned, which "can cause rsync to
> > not work properly".
> What documentation?  Define improperly.  I would like more
> than just vague hearsay assertions.  A test case showing
> improper behaviour or specific code analysis showing a type
> mismatch that actually could (even if only in theory) impact
> behaviour.

After much research and testing, I have removed this final
'sign' patch from Red Hat's rsync package.  This 'sign' patch
fixed a signed vs. unsigned comparison bug on systems that
were not built with LFS support.  Since Red Hat now (and for
several versions back) builds with LFS support, this patch
is no longer necessary going forward.
So, for future Red Hat releases, Red Hat is not (at this
point in time) maintaining any patches outside the plain
vanilla publicly released rsync.  In the future, if it
becomes necessary for me to create a patch to address a bug,
I will coordinate with the rsync developers to ensure that
the bug and patch are reviewed, and proper action is taken.

My goal is for Red Hat to NOT maintain any patches outside
the public rsync version.
Hardy Merrill
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the rsync mailing list