Bug 368451

Summary: setfacl returns 0 even though it fails
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek>
Component: aclAssignee: Jiri Moskovcak <jmoskovc>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.1CC: dfediuck, dkovalsk, jmoskovc, ksrot, rvokal, sct
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-12-09 08:30:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Proposed patch none

Description Jakub Hrozek 2007-11-06 16:15:17 UTC 
Description of problem:
Even if setfacl fails and prints error messages, it returns 0. This is 
confusing. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
acl-2.2.39-3.el5

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. make setfacl fail (I found this during testing of bug 298471)
2. echo $?
  
Actual results:
$? == 0

Expected results:
$? != 0
Comment 1 Jiri Moskovcak 2007-11-07 12:10:05 UTC 
*** Bug 368461 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 Jiri Moskovcak 2007-11-08 14:47:37 UTC 
Created attachment 251511 [details]
Proposed patch
Comment 3 RHEL Program Management 2007-12-03 20:47:30 UTC 
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in
the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release.  This request will
be reviewed for a future Red Hat Enterprise Linux release.
Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2009-12-09 08:30:21 UTC 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-1652.html