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? >>> >>> 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. Thanks, -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
