On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 16:55, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> + - SANITY
>> +
>> + Test is not run by root user, and an attempt to write to an
>> + unwritable file is expected to fail correctly.
>
> As I said in the previous round, I am indeed in favor of having a single
> "running as root---code that expects that the normal UNIXy permission
> based protection to apply, aka 'running in sane environment', will not
> work correctly" prerequisite token, rather than having separate "can I
> expect an unwritable file to be unwritable?" "can I expect an unreadble
> file to be unreadable?" bits.
I probably shouldn't have used your docs as-is, you're right. It could
be explained better.
> The name of the token _might_ be subject to debate (I am fine with
> either SANITY or NOROOT), but the explanation should mention this is
> defined to be a bit more broad than "unWRITABLE", I think.
NOROOT is better I think,.
> "test -w /" is a traditional way to approximately check if you are
> running as root (technically, it only checks if you are running with
> unduly high privilege---your sysadm _could_ have done "chmod 2775 /"
> and made it owned by the admin group).
Initially I wrote it as:
# test whether the filesystem supports symbolic links
ln -s x y 2>/dev/null && test -h y 2>/dev/null && test_set_prereq SYMLINKS
rm -f y
+
+# test whether we can make read-only files
+mkdir hla
+chmod -w hla
+touch hla/gh >/dev/null 2>&1
+test -f hla/gh || test_set_prereq SANITY
+rm -rf hla
But then I saw your old "test -w /" implementation and figured it was
good enough without doing all this work on setup. I can submit another
patch with that fixup if you like, maybe it'll prevent odd failures on
someone's odd system.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html