Closed
Bug 80051
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
run multiple instances of mozilla when installed from RPM
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: X-remote, enhancement)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
Future
People
(Reporter: ataylor+origacct, Assigned: blizzard)
References
Details
(Keywords: helpwanted, Whiteboard: [xremote])
Attachments
(2 files)
5.56 KB,
patch
|
shaver
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
6.31 KB,
patch
|
shaver
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The /usr/bin/mozilla shell script that is installed from the 0.9 RPM release does not allow distinct users to run seperate copies of mozilla. To reproduce: login as user xxx run /usr/bin/mozilla open shell and su to user yyy run /usr/bin/mozilla Result: the shell script opens a second window on the mozilla instance of xxx. Expected result: a new instance of mozilla started for yyy
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
Ran regxpcom and regchrome as root and tried again with same results. The /usr/lib/mozilla shell script works as follows: - run mozilla with '-remote openURL(...)' - if that fails, exec mozilla The problem is another user's mozilla will accept the '-remote openURL()', and thus enforces sort of a "one-mozilla per X display" rule.
Yep, we don't support that :) there are a bunch of bugs about this, they should be marked as blocking this bug, and would lead to this bug being treated as future.
Severity: minor → enhancement
Keywords: helpwanted
Summary: can't run moz as multiple users when installed from RPM → run multiple instances of mozilla when installed from RPM
Target Milestone: --- → Future
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
If you can talk to the X display you can try and open a new window. This is a feature, not a bug.
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
This isn't a bug.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
vrfy blizzard doesn't consider this a bug.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 99810 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
OK, I've gotten enough requests for this. I'm going to fix it.
Status: VERIFIED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 49629 [details] [diff] [review] patch I love it. sr=shaver
Attachment #49629 -
Flags: superreview+
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
The idea of using the UID is not safe in all environments... $LOGNAME would be better. Think about the case that multiple users are mapped to one UID (which is _explicitly_ allowed in unix) or nameservies like NIS+ or the DCE stuff etc. etc.
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
Well, you could make the argument that you might have the same username with different UIDs as well. This will cover 99% of cases.
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
The patch will fail to function in large NIS+ and DCE environments... that's my point... where's the problem to use $LOGNAME instead of the UID ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
How portable is LOGNAME?
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
As far as I can remember the user2netname() call may be used in such environments to obtain a {cross-platform,cross-domain}-unique user id. -- snip -- int user2netname(char name[MAXNETNAMELEN+1], const uid_t uid, Convert from a domain-specific username to an operating system independent netname. Returns 1 if it succeeds, and 0 if it fails. Inverse of netname2user(). -- snip -- But $LOGNAME is far easier and cover 99.999% of all cases... I am sure that the case that "two different people having the name $LOGNAME in two different domains will share the same display" is very very rare.
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
> How portable is LOGNAME?
Well... I never saw a Unix/Linux machine which does not set it at login time. At
least Solaris, Linux, AIX and CrayOS set it. I cannot confirm it for IRIX/HP-UX
(I do not have access to such OSes yet) ...
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
Well, you could make that same argument about UID.
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
> Well, you could make that same argument about UID
Even Linux has this rpc.ugid uid/gid<-->uid/gid mapper daemon which does such
uid<-->uid translations.
Using $LOGNAME would be resitent against such a stuff - and catches even very
common NIS+/DCE cases.
Reporter | ||
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
What about nsUserInfo::GetUsername from xpfe/appshell/src? Shouldn't we get the user name from there?
I'm not sure what the problem is that we're trying to solve with $LOGNAME. I don't think that UID portability across machines is really the goal -- if I'm starting mozilla against Chris's display, and we have the same UID or LOGNAME, I would still really want a new instance to pop up, and not have it "cleverly" open a window of Chris' running Mozilla. So let's do UID+hostname or something else that will share where it's meaningful (same UID on same system), and fault to a new process where it's not (different UID or different system). The alternative is using things like the nfs UID mapping daemons, and nobody wants that. Do we have access to a meaningful hostname? IP address?
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
I like the idea of (uid)@(hostname). On unix it's just gethostname() and that's pretty damn portable.
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
And what about the case that one person is logged into two machines using the same account (identified via $LOGNAME) and using the same Xserver ? Why do we need remote X11 when it does not work correctly anymore that way ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
After thinking about it I think that gisburn is right on both counts. This is a patch that just uses LOGNAME and doesn't include hostname information.
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Minor detail (for the reporter): % su - myuser # is the right way A plain % su myuser # does not touch most ENV vars (incl. $LOGNAME). blizzard's patch is OK; this minor detail of "su" is wanted... :-)
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
seems reasonable.. sr=alecf
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [xremote]
Comment on attachment 49643 [details] [diff] [review] patch that uses LOGNAME Yeah, this is better. Thanks, gisburn, for setting us straight. sr=shaver
Attachment #49643 -
Flags: superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
Checked in.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 32•22 years ago
|
||
I log from work to my home machine where I have differently named user and I would like to be able to open urls from there. With these patches this does not work. As a workaround I can set the LOGNAME for the mozilla -remote, but I would need to do that in more than one place and I am not sure that I am able to do it in all the places I want.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 33•22 years ago
|
||
this is fixed, if you want some other behavior please file a new bug. but please think about your request before filing it. does it make sense for a coworker to send my web browser to a random url as my boss walks by? (or my peer as my prof or g/f or the dean)
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 22 years ago
Component: Browser-General → X-remote
QA Contact: doron → blizzard
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•5 years ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•