On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:03:07 +0200, Herbert Poetzl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:07:39AM -0500, Corey Wright wrote:
>> how about exec'ing chattr instead of eval'ing it (as chattr is too
>> buggy to test with) and instead test the xattrs (using showattr &
>> lsattr as done elsewhere in the code) after the attempted chattr to
>> insure it didn't change them?
> close, but not perfect, we should at least (explicitly or
> implicitly) ensure that chattr _exists_ and was executed,
> because otherwise checking for changes doesn't make much
> sense (i.e. will give a false positive)
> if that is done somehow, we can forget about the chattr
> return code completely ...
Could you first do a test of creating something in /tmp (on the host, not
in a guest context) and then chattr and verify that the changes DID
happen.. If so we assume chattr is working fine and then can trust the
results of it within the contexts?
Received on Fri Aug 21 13:49:08 2009