Good thought. I have a JOB.MONITOR that is kicked off by cron (as root) that does all the batch processing. This program processes a number of job queues. I was thinking that if I couldn't get this done via access rights, then I would resort to this and just set up a job queue for printer commands.
I had to do something similar with list_readu and ipcs to allow users the ability to issue LIST.READU and PORT.STATUS. It is required by managers to help to determine who to log off when needed (not often). The solution to allow users access to these commands was 'chmod u=rws /usr/bin/ipcs'. This did the trick ! So, I figured that I'd try to find out what is going on during the command 'usm -r 160'. I did 'strace usm -r 160' and examined the output for when it worked (logged on as root) and when it didn't (logged on as me). The only difference was when the call to geteuid32() was made. For root, it returned '0'. For me, it returned '500'. I really don't see anything else - no errors, etc ... Thanks Anthony -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Woodward Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] Universe usm permissions How about creating a phantom process that runs as Administrator to issue your command? It can watch for an entry in file, which would be the spooler number, then it would issue the usm command without having to give normal users the extra rights of an admin. Just a thought. BobW > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Dzikiewicz > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [U2] Universe usm permissions > > I am trying to allow users to be able issue 'usm -r' command. I put an > option on their menu to 'Release Delivery Slips' (which are still in the > spooled due to 'RETAIN'). This basically does a 'usm -r 160' (160 being > the spool #). When I issue this as a 'general user', the file does not > release. I tried doing 'chmod u=rws usm' or 'chmod +s usm'. I belive > this was done on the DG/UX system, we had to set a 'sticky bit' for > users to have acces to this command. > > I am looking thru a possible solution via ACL's. > > Anyone, already solve this problem ? > > Anthony > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
