On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:55 -0700, Henry Yei wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to see if there was still interest in the patch from > this thread last month.
Thanks. I was not aware of this patch. Checked in now. Regards-- Subrata > > Henry Yei <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> wrote: > > Garrett, > > > > This patch installs the trap for cleanup_test which removes the > > sudoers file only if it was installed by utimensat script, and also > > takes care of detecting whether sudo knows about the -n option. > > > > Signed-Off-By: <[email protected]> > > > > > > The patch was generated from ltp-dev git tree. > > > > I didn't realize Caspar's patch hadn't already been incorporated yet, > > so didn't account for it. > > > > Henry Yei <[email protected]> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> If a sudo file exists, the patch doesn't touch it. If it does not, a > >>> sudoers file will be created and then it will remove it afterwards. I > >>> wouldn't feel confortable having a script modify a sudoers file if it > >>> already exists. The sudoers content that it does put in place just > >>> enables the root user to use sudo, which would not give it any more > >>> access than it already has. This text is available in every sudoers > >>> file I've looked at. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> While I was testing the patch with the ltp-dev branch, I noticed that > >>> the -n option was put in front of every sudo call in commit > >>> 2aa40f7e10518977881b933cc93b8f50847cf3cf in order to suppress the > >>> interactive password check. > >>> > >>> However, neither sudo 1.6.8p12 from MontaVista Linux 6 or 1.6.9p17 > >>> from Ubuntu 9.04 supports the -n option. The patch also removes the > >>> -n option from sudo calls. This option was added in 3/2008. > >> > >> Ugh. The sudo in gentoo did this though and that's the reason why I > >> added it in some scripts -- otherwise the pieces of junk halt waiting > >> for user input and I had manually kill the scripts >:(... I guess a > >> test will need to be added to ensure that sudo _does_ have the -n > >> option beforehand, if it does, add the -n option. Otherwise all people > >> running older versions are kind of SoL. > >> > >> sudo is still a non-standard tool and a pain in the butt to deal with > >> in scripts as it changes from time to time. > >> > >> FWIW your patch only deals with the case when the script `exits > >> cleanly' as there aren't any traps installed for cleanup_test. > >> > >>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Speaking of the utimesat test and prerequisites, our test systems > >>>>> don't have a sudoers file by default, so we have an internal patch to > >>>>> utimesat to create a default one if non exist and remove it after the > >>>>> test is done. Would that be of interest to LTP? > >>>>>>> > >> Thanks, > >> -Garrett > >> > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Caspar Zhang <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> The first item is different from the other two. The first one ignores > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> signal (SIG_IGN), whereas the latter two cases reset the handler to > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> default one (SIG_DFL). I prefer the former format, because otherwise > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> signal handlers become reentrable on accident. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I see. Thank you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The final patch ;-) > >>>> > >>>> If it: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Works in all cases, i.e. doesn't use version specific constructs > >>>> for sudo (which I haven't seen thus far, but just to be safe). > >>>> 2. Is properly reverted when the test is done (which includes the > >>>> following scenarios): > >>>> a. File already exists. Backup the old file, revert it when the > >>>> test is completed (regardless of whether or not the test passed or the > >>>> test failed properly [*]). > >>>> b. File doesn't exist. Nuke the file after the test is done. > >>>> > >>>> ... sure. > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -Garrett > >>>> > >>>> [*] SIGKILL or SIGSTOP can't be avoided, so technically it's a best > >>>> effort. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
