I thought that was a non-zero exit code but it's not :) We just noticed a change -- in the earlier version we used (not sure which now, I think 4.x) there was no output from varnishadm.
We'll just send the 200 to /dev/null then. On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:39 AM Guillaume Quintard <[email protected]> wrote: > > 200 means the command passed to varnish, via varnishadm, succeeded. What > makes you think it failed? > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 15:24 Martynas Jusevičius <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Actually it does not seem to be the exit code. I tried checking and it >> looks like the exit code is 0: >> >> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /" >> 200 >> >> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# test $? -eq 0 || echo "Error" >> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# >> >> So where is that "200" coming from? >> >> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:14 AM Martynas Jusevičius >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > We recently switched to the varnish:latest container and based an >> > unprivileged image on it (entrypoint runs as USER varnish): >> > https://github.com/AtomGraph/varnish/blob/official-image/Dockerfile >> > >> > We noticed that our varnishadm commands started failing. More specifically: >> > >> > root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /" >> > 200 >> > >> > As I understand it's a 200 exit code, which means varnishadm failed: >> > https://varnish-cache.org/docs/5.1/reference/varnishadm.html#exit-status >> > >> > What does 200 mean exactly? I couldn't find any code list. >> > My guess is that this has to do with the unprivileged varnish user, >> > but I'm not sure what it takes to fix it. >> > >> > >> > Martynas >> _______________________________________________ >> varnish-misc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
