Re: [LTP] LTP's filecaps test gives false positive results

[Garrett C. <yan...@gm...>]

On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:35 AM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@us...> wrote:

> Quoting Garrett Cooper (yan...@gm...):
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 7:21 AM, "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@us...>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting Iranna D Ankad (ira...@in...):
>>>> LTP reports setcap is installed, but actually, my system has setcap
>>>> installed, along with all required libcap related rpms.
>>>>
>>>> mx3950:/opt/ltp # setc
>>>> setcap      setconsole  setctsid
>>>> mx3950:/opt/ltp #
>>>>
>>>> mx3950:/opt/ltp # rpm -qa | grep cap
>>>> libcap1-1.10-6.10
>>>> libcap2-2.11-2.15
>>>> libcap-progs-2.11-2.15
>>>> libpcap0-0.9.8-50.4.32
>>>> libcap2-32bit-2.11-2.15
>>>> libcap1-32bit-1.10-6.10
>>>> mx3950:/opt/ltp #
>>>
>>> THere are a bunch of #if directives in there (only looked at
>>> check_simple_capset.c which I assume is where your trouble is) which
>>> are not defined on my fedora 10 test system.  Don't know where they
>>> came from - they predate the git history.
>>>
>>> HAVE_SYS_CAPABILITY_H, HAVE_DECL_CAP_FROM_TEXT, etc.
>>>
>>> -serge
>>
>> That would be from me; I do that via autoconf and they probably
>> fubared the headers on Redhat or something... Do you have
>
> Oh, ok.  Well I suspect we can ditch the check_simple_capset.c
> altogether if autoconf is (eventually :) doing the detection for
> us.  The only point of check_simple_capset.c was to check whether
> libcap is there and whether we should run the real tests.
>
>> libcap-devel installed?
>
> yup:
>
> [root@oracer4b ltp-dev]# rpm -qa|grep libcap
> libcap-2.10-2.fc10.x86_64
> libcap-devel-2.10-2.fc10.x86_64
>
> [root@oracer4b ltp-dev]# grep CAP_LIB *
> config.log:CAP_LIBS=''
> config.status:S["CAP_LIBS"]=""
> configure:CAP_LIBS'
> configure:                    CAP_LIBS="-lcap"
>
> so somehow -lcap was not detected by configure?

Well some of the definitions are there but maybe not all of them.  
config.log would help...

>> Fwiw, that probably could be grossly simplified at the top of the
>> file or something, do I'll look into doing that later.

Cheers!
-Garrett