Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:50:02 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Many pthread failures in the test suite, one setgroup failure
Message-ID: <20020925145002.GA1439@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020925141653 DOT GA6134 AT redhat DOT com> <20020925162508 DOT H20875 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <83368880832 DOT 20020925183143 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20020925164219 DOT I20875 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020925164219.I20875@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 06:31:43PM +0400, Egor Duda wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>> Wednesday, 25 September, 2002 Corinna Vinschen vinschen AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>> 
>> CV> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:16:53AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
>> >> ltp/setgroups01.c: child process exited abnormally
>> >> XFAIL: ltp/setgroups01.c (execute)
>> 
>> CV> Did you check that in the setgroups01.c test:
>> 
>> CV> void
>> CV> setup()
>> CV> {
>> CV>     [...]
>> CV>     if ( geteuid() != 0 )
>> CV>             tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "Must be ROOT to run this test.");
>> 
>> This check (and also similar checks in other tests) should be fixed to
>> reflect cygwin's notion of administrative privileges. What's the
>> proper way to check if current process is running under privileged
>> account?
>
>There is none which would satisfy me.  Theoretically you would have
>to check if the process token has the needed user rights "Act as part
>of the operating system", "Create process level token", "Replace a
>process level token".  And ntsec should be on.
>
>OTOH, cron only asks for uid 18...

I'd be satisfied with removing the check altogether if that is the best
we can do.  So, we'll have to live with one FAIL in cases where the
test is run without privileges.

OTOH, I noticed a new XPASS in this run.  I don't know if this is an
anomoly or not.

cgf