Evan Layton wrote: > 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); >
right. fixed. > 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 I agree and noticed that before too. > 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. > Right. I'll file a bug for this. Thanks Tim > -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 >
