GNU bug report logs - #12954
Differences between 'su' version give different results

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: ybronhei <ybronhei <at> redhat.com>
Subject: bug#12954: closed (Re: bug#12954: Differences between 'su'
 version give different results)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:08:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#12954: Differences between 'su' version give different results

which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 12954 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
12954: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12954
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: ybronhei <ybronhei <at> redhat.com>
Cc: 12954-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dan Kenigsberg <danken <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Re: bug#12954: Differences between 'su' version give different results
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:06:09 -0700

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 12954 notabug
thanks

On 11/21/2012 09:07 AM, ybronhei wrote:
> Differences between 'su' version give different results in the following
> shell script:

> over fedora 17 I run - coreutils 8.15-8: if the file is not accessible
> by user the script prints no access, and the other way around.
> over rhel 6.3 we run - coreutils 8.4: the result of func is always
> "access" without any dependency of the file permissions.. My first guess
> was that it returns 0 because the 'su' command was succeeded, but with
> strace you see that the script runs differently.
> 
> Is it a bug?

Thanks for the report.  Perhaps it is a bug in the older coreutils 8.4
that was fixed for coreutils 8.15, although a quick read through NEWS
didn't find such a mention (only that 8.9 was the point at which
upstream quit building su by default, and therefore Fedora 17 is using a
non-default build in order to get su from coreutils 8.15).  Or it could
be a patch that is applied to Fedora but not to RHEL.  Either way,
upstream coreutils no longer maintains coreutils (newer distros, such as
Fedora 18, use 'su' from util-linux); furthermore, upstream, we only
focus on fixing current bugs, and not on backporting fixes to older
releases.  So your question should be redirected downstream to your
particular distro (that is, please file a support request with Red Hat),
as it is not something we are worried about here.

I'm closing this bug report because there is nothing further to do
upstream; but obviously the issue is real for your setup, and you should
feel free to send further replies if you have more questions and/or file
a downstream bug and want to post the results of that downstream bug
resolution back to this list.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake <at> redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: ybronhei <ybronhei <at> redhat.com>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Cc: Dan Kenigsberg <danken <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Differences between 'su' version give different results
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:07:22 +0200

Differences between 'su' version give different results in the following 
shell script:

# !/bin/sh

func() {
su user > /dev/null 2>&1 << EOF
echo >> /tmp/b
EOF
}

if func; then
   echo "access"
else
   echo "no access"
fi

over fedora 17 I run - coreutils 8.15-8: if the file is not accessible 
by user the script prints no access, and the other way around.
over rhel 6.3 we run - coreutils 8.4: the result of func is always 
"access" without any dependency of the file permissions.. My first guess 
was that it returns 0 because the 'su' command was succeeded, but with 
strace you see that the script runs differently.

Is it a bug?

Thanks.

-- 
Yaniv Bronhaim.
RedHat, Israel
09-7692289
054-7744187

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.