On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:22:19PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote: > /tset/LSB.os/procenv/nice/T.nice 9 FAIL
> 10|866 /tset/LSB.os/procenv/nice/T.nice 22:59:40|TC Start, scenario ref 872-0 > 15|866 3.6-lite 9|TCM Start > 400|866 9 1 22:59:40|IC Start > 200|866 9 22:59:40|TP Start > 520|866 9 00008759 1 1|nice(-1) did not return expected values > 520|866 9 00008759 1 2|ERRNO VALUES: expected: 1 (EPERM), observed: 0 (NO > ERROR)220|866 9 1 22:59:40|FAIL > 410|866 9 1 22:59:40|IC End > 80|866 0 22:59:41|TC End, scenario ref 872-0 > The nice() issue is a fairly straightforward attempt by the test process > to increase its own priority by calling nice(-1), which appears to be > succeeding. This has the potential to be a security issue. Sorry, this one at least is bug #388431 in pam, which I hope to get taken care of tonight. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
