On 06.12.2011 16:13, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:56:29AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> _require_user only checks if the qa user exists in /etc/passwd. It may exist
>> though still not be able to execute anything (e.g. with a /bin/false shell).
>>
>> _user_do cannot determine failure to execute the given command, as it uses
>> _user_do_filter for post-processing which succeeds even if the command
>> fails. Thus, the check should be performed by _require_user.
>
> Looks good. Wouldn't
>
> su $qa_user -c /bin/true
>
> be the more normal way to write that test?
I agree. I saw this and thought I'd adapt the (sometimes strange)
predominant bash programming style:
921 _user_do()
922 {
923 if [ "$HOSTOS" == "IRIX" ]
924 then
925 echo $1 | /bin/bash "su $qa_user 2>&1" | _filter_user_do
926 else
927 echo $1 | su $qa_user 2>&1 | _filter_user_do
928 fi
929 }
-Jan
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
