| To: | Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: check if qa user can execute commands |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:13:00 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1323165389-5419-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1323165389-5419-1-git-send-email-list.btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:56:29AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
> _require_user only checks if the qa user exists in /etc/passwd. It may exist
> though still not be able to execute anything (e.g. with a /bin/false shell).
>
> _user_do cannot determine failure to execute the given command, as it uses
> _user_do_filter for post-processing which succeeds even if the command
> fails. Thus, the check should be performed by _require_user.
Looks good. Wouldn't
su $qa_user -c /bin/true
be the more normal way to write that test?
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfstests: ln failure output has changed again, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] security: Delay freeing inode->i_security till the end of RCU grace period, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfstests: check if qa user can execute commands, Jan Schmidt |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: check if qa user can execute commands, Jan Schmidt |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |