On 2020-09-15 01:10, Sergey Gorenko wrote: > I tested the patch for the following scenarios: > * Start the srp_daemon service when srp_daemon is not running and the lock file does not exist. > * Start the srp_daemon service when srp_daemon is not running and the lock file exists. > * Start the srp_daemon service when srp_daemon is running and the lock file exists. > * Start the srp_daemon service when srp_daemon is running and the lock file exists and the file owner is not root. (Such scenario can happen if someone tries to run srp_daemon manually as not root. The srp_daemon fails in this case, but the lock file is created). This case is handled successfully even without the fchmod() call because the srp_daemon service starts srp_daemon as root. > > I do not know any case when fchmod() is needed. And it does not look like a good idea to create a word-writable file owned by root. That's why I want to remove the fchmod() call. > > Do you have an idea when the fchmod() call can be needed? > > If you have no other objections, I will add the fixes line and send V1. Thanks Sergey for having shared all this information. I think this testing is sufficient. Hence: Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
