-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60280/#review178586
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp
Lines 671-674 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60280/#comment252672>

    Sorry, I got confused. User should be the one setting argv[0]. So we don't 
need to change the code here.



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp
Lines 801 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60280/#comment252676>

    OK, what if 'executable' has an absolute path?


- Jie Yu


On June 21, 2017, 10:26 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/60280/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2017, 10:26 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, James Peach, and Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7703
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7703
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> If a framework specifies use of its own executor and sets shell to false the 
> executor is never found. Additionally, the name of the binary is never passed 
> as an argument so executors making use of argv[0] will fail. This provides 
> the full path to the executor so that the `execvp` or `execvpe` is 
> successful. The name of the binary is also passed as the first argument for 
> cases where there is no shell used.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp 162ca1c2e 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60280/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `cd build && cmake .. -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release && make -j4`
> Also spun up a master and agent, connected and sent a task using the UCR 
> (both with and without the use of an OCI image) via our own framework, and 
> checked the sandbox to verify that things went accordingly.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aaron Wood
> 
>

Reply via email to