[SSSD] [PATCH] UTIL: Ignore insufficient permission for some proc files

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue Mar 18 07:20:34 UTC 2014


On (17/03/14 22:16), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:32:39PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (17/03/14 08:05), Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> >On 03/17/2014 04:02 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> ehlo,
>> >> 
>> >> Attached patch fixes problem with find-uid test on altlinux. Alexey
>> >> Shabalin reported this in another thread.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >
>> >I've seen that intermittently when building with systemd in Koji as
>> >well. I think there's a more fundamental problem here, and I'd
>> >recommend not just papering over it. It's likely either a systemd bug
>> >or a misunderstanding about how it interacts when building in a chroot.
>> >
>> proc fylesystem is not mount with option hidepid=1 on fedora.
>> maybe, you hit another bug.
>> 
>> LS
>
>I was thinking about this on my way home and I wonder if we could wrap
>Lukas's change in an #ifdef either based on a define passed during build
>(-DSSS_PROC_HIDEPID) or automatically detected if possible. I agree with
Compile time detection is not a good idea.

Shaba wrote in another mail:
> ALTLinux team usually  used "Hasher" for local build packages
> It is local build environment, same on build server.
> It is like sandman or mock(fedora)
>    Please see:
>    http://git.altlinux.org/people/ldv/packages/hasher.git?p=hasher.git;a=blob;f=hasher/FAQ
The test did not fail when I was building sssd in ALTLinux as a normal user.
The test only failed when "Hasher" was used.

Compile time detection will have the same effect like a patch in downstream.
If we do not want to skip proc files with insufficient permission we can leave
to downstream only.

>Stephen that we shouldn't hide any potential issues by simply skipping
>the EPERM error code.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list