Reed Liu wrote: > John Forte wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> In principle this looks good, and I'm almost ready to +1 it, but I >>> have a few questions first: >>> >>> 1) I don't know enough about the FC protocol... will forcing target >>> ports to reinitialize have any negative implications for the >>> initiators? I'd like to understand the ramifications of any side >>> effects. >> The initiators will get a RSCN (Remote State Change Notification) from >> the FC switch, which will generally cause them to rediscover for any >> changes to the fabric, which is generally the desired behavior from >> the administrator issuing this command. >>> >>> 2) Are any additional privileges required for this operation? What >>> are the privileges needed to perform this action? >> I believe sys_devices is required. Reed? > Yes, that's correct.
There doesn't appear to be an existing RBAC rights profile (exec_attr(4)) entry for fcadm. While this case doesn't make things any worse, since fcadm already exists and luxadm doesn't have an exec_attr(4) profile either, I would really like this situation to be resolved. As such I've logged 6862566 rather than holding this minor case to resolving the situation, the main reason for that is I think the problem is bigger than just fcadm. -- Darren J Moffat
