On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Dustin Kirkland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: lsb-base > Version: 3.2-13 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > This patch fixes a couple of minor issues with pidofproc() and reverts a > patch to status_of_proc(). > > pidofproc(): > > * If a pidfile is available, but the euid is not that of the > process owner (or root), the "kill -0" call will fail with > "Operation not permitted". This patch adds an "elif" block that > uses "ps" to check for a matching process in the process table. > Note that in cases where the pidfile is not available > and /bin/pidof is used, such an ownership check is *not* > performed. > > * The /bin/pidof call needs to "|| status="$?" in order to be > "set -e" safe. This is a patch that Ubuntu is carrying and > should be applied to Debian. > > * Also, per [1], pidofproc() should probably return 3 if the > program is not running. At least it does at one point in the > function, but not in the last return. Ubuntu has also been > carrying this patch for some time. > > status_of_proc(): > > * So this patch reverts my last one for Bug #483285 (sorry!). > That fix was to solve the problem that pidofproc() required > privileges to do the "kill -0". At the urging of Matt Zimmerman > and Steve Lanagasek, I fixed the problem in pidofproc() instead > of hacking around it in status_of_proc(). > > [1] > http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
Is this the right patch? It appears to be relative to 3.2-12 (or earlier), not 3.2-13. Chris
