From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joachim Schmitz" Subject: Re: Test failure: Test #3 in t1304-default-acl Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:08:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <7v4nmwwqox.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vvcfctmka.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 01 10:09:16 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TIb3v-00034P-Hz for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:09:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752237Ab2JAII4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 04:08:56 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:56072 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752125Ab2JAIIv (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 04:08:51 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TIb3b-0002QI-TP for git@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:08:51 +0200 Received: from dsdf-4d0a1cfd.pool.mediaways.net ([77.10.28.253]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:08:51 +0200 Received: from jojo by dsdf-4d0a1cfd.pool.mediaways.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:08:51 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dsdf-4d0a1cfd.pool.mediaways.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Hi Junio, > > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Matthieu Moy writes: >> >>> Junio C Hamano writes: >>> >>>> I haven't been paying attention, but does that mean on that system, >>>> a total stranger kseygold can write, modify, and remove whatever >>>> Ram owns? I am hoping that is not the case. >>> >>> I can see two reasons for having the same UID for two login names: >>> >>> 1) the sysadmin really messed up, and as you say, a total stranger >>> has complete ownership of your files. Ramkumar, you should check >>> that this is not your case. >>> >>> 2) the sysadmin explicitely gave two login names to the same >>> physical person, as kinds of aliases for the same UID (e.g. the >>> person got married, changed her name and login, but expects >>> ~oldlogin to continue working). I'm not sure how common this is, >>> and to which extend we want to support this in our test scripts. >> >> I've only been assuming (1), but (2) feels like a legitimate (if >> confusing) way to configure your system. >> >> It is a separate issue if it is worth bending backwards to support >> it in the test, though. > > For what it's worth, `sudo` is "broken" on my system. sudo can't deal properly with multiple users sharing a UID, as it uses getpwuid(getuid()) in places. On my system I've replaced that with getgwnam(getlogin()). which seems to work fine here. Bye, Jojo