On 08/09/2012 05:43 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> Hi, I think I got a fix for this bugzilla
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556358.
> I added a bit of permission checking to require_root_ so no tests have
> to be rewriten.
> Have a nice day :) ,
> Ondrej
>
Hi Ondrej,
> +setuidgid_has_perm_()
> +{
> +
> + cat << \EOF > cmds.tmp
> + IFS=:
> + for DIR in $PATH; do
> + test -x $DIR || exit 1
> + done
> + exit 0
> +EOF
> +
> + su -s /bin/sh $NON_ROOT_USERNAME < cmds.tmp
> +
> + RET=$?
> + return $RET
> +}
> +
just a thought: if setuidgid is part of the test failure,
then why not using setuidgid in here?
Furthermore: the problem is finding the correct binary, right?
E.g. in tests/rm/fail-2eperm there is already such a test:
# Try to ensure that $NON_ROOT_USERNAME can access
# the required version of rm.
rm_version=$(
setuidgid $NON_ROOT_USERNAME env PATH="$PATH" rm --version |
sed -n '1s/.* //p'
)
case $rm_version in
$PACKAGE_VERSION) ;;
*) skip_ "cannot access just-built rm as user $NON_ROOT_USERNAME";;
esac
Have a nice day,
Berny
