On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:55, Matt Anderson wrote:
> Eduardo Madeira Fleury wrote:
>
> Other than the issues you've raised here the only other thing I've
> become aware of is when an auid is not available the client utilities
> will block.  Seems to me that they should return an error.

That's fine.

> This appears to be the side effect of what went in for bug #213498.  As
> a result of that fix the MLS checks are not occurring when a user lists
> the queue.

I see, but, is that going to remain as a side effect or is that going to 
change? 

Besides MLS checks, I though one user was never allowed to see jobs from other 
users in the queue, even if they had the same levels. Does this requirement 
exist?

> There was a fix related to this (bug #216855) that enabled FileDevice
> printers.  In testing what you mentioned above it seems that if the file
> device file does not exists prior to attempting to print to it then the
> action is blocked.  In certain cases even when it does exist cupsd is
> not allowed to stat() the target file.  The error handling for that case
> needs to be improved.

Actually I had tried touching the printer device file to see what happened, 
and also tried to relabel that file in the same manner as /dev/usb/lp0. But 
the system might be outdated. I'll try to get any updates and test that 
again.

> The main problem here is that if the file does not exist, then the cups
> file backend needs to create it.  I can add the logic to the file
> backend to adjust the level and type of the file as necessary, or we can
> document that in order to print to a file you must first `touch` that
> file.  I prefer the latter since although the level the file will be
> obvious from the client's context the type will not be.  user_lpr_t is a
> typical type for the client, and while the user would be able to read
> that output it still seems like the wrong type to me.
>
> If there are objections, or if someone knows of a good way to determine
> what type the output should be then I can do that, but for now creating
> the file before printing to it seems better to me.
>
> I will finish putting together an updated patch that addresses these
> issues and send that to Redhat.
>

Thanks!

-- 
Eduardo M. Fleury
IBM Linux Technology Center Brazil
Mobile: +55-19-81224410
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
redhat-lspp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp

Reply via email to