Hi Tim, usr/src/lib/libbe/be_mount.c: line 1567 is returning the errno and not translating that into a be_errno_t. Maybe this line should be should be ret = errno_to_be_err(err);
General nit (and not just for these changes): In some places we're checking the success of a function using 0 and in others we're using BE_SUCCESS. We should probably be consistent with this. I'm not sure going through all of libbe right now changing this is such a good idea but doing it for these changes would be good. As an example line 553 in be_activate checks against 0 but line 1517 in be_create checks against BE_SUCCESS. -evan Tim Knitter wrote: > Dave and all, > > I fixed all the other cases I could find where we should print out an > insufficient privileges message. I successfully tested again on bld 98 as an > unprivileged user and the messages are displayed properly. > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/3734/ > > Thanks > Tim > > Tim Knitter wrote: >> Dave Miner wrote: >>> Tim Knitter wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Could Ethan and/or Evan or anyone else for that matter review this >>>> snap2 project fix which is against the snap_upgrade WS? I'm sending >>>> this out as a separate review since this is a bug found during the >>>> system test phase of the project and it isn't covered in the main >>>> webrev (3686) >>>> >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/3734/ >>>> This was tested on opensolaris bld 88. The test revealed the following >>>> output when the user was non-privaleged: >>>> >>> I hope you meant 98 there... >>> >> Yes. A little dyslexia there. >> >>>> os% beadm destroy be2 >>>> Are you sure you want to destroy be2? This action cannot be >>>> undone(y/[n]): y >>>> Unable to destroy be2. >>>> You don't have enough permissions to execute this command. >>>> Either use 'pfexec' to execute the command or become superuser. >>>> >>> Is this really the only case in which we should be printing a >>> permissions error? If not, can we try to fix at least some of the >>> others while you're at it? >> Yeah there are probably other places that could use this message. Thus the >> reason to keep it rather generic. I'll search and replace where it is needed. >> >>> For i18n purposes, contractions are discouraged. Also, it's not >>> permissions, but privileges which are lacking. Perhaps something like: >> Right. I came to that conclusion after reading this again after Joe replied. >> >>> Unable to destroy be2 due to insufficient privileges. Either use pfexec >>> to execute the command, or become superuser. >> Yeah that is better. >> >> Thanks >> Tim >> >>> Dave >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
