IDS Forum

RE: I have a puzzling situation

Posted By: John Adamski
Date: Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 10:58 a.m.

In Response To: RE: I have a puzzling situation (jim-cramer@uiowa.edu)

Jim,

Our developers use the SYSTEM command for a number of things from 'echo' to running scripts. Most of the procs seem to run a script and this is causing us the most problem. One of the procs I know of does an echo to a file in /tmp. And this echo does fails and this seems to have started around the time we upgraded from 11.50 to 11.70.

The question on PATH, I have taken my two test users out of the menu system and they have command line access on our DR/test system. I got what looks like normal $PATH and they are the same between the two users. I did this change to remove one layer of complexity, I just now logon as them and run dbaccess to test the procs.

echo $PATH
/opt/carsi/install/cis:/opt/perl514/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/opt/carsi/install/utl:/opt/carsi/install/bin:/opt/informix/bin:/opt/aCC/bin:/opt/gnu/bin:/opt/java6/bin:/opt/openldap/bin:/usr/contrib/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/contrib/bin/X11:/opt/imake/bin:/opt/less/bin:/opt/ncftp/bin:/opt/pine/bin:/opt/ytalk/bin/X11:/opt/carstrain/install/scp/graceland/

which echo
/bin/echo
which mailx
/bin/mailx

And /bin is in the path.

Their .cshrc seem to set their PATH based on logon so if I'm reading it correctly the logon and sub-shell should have the same PATH. I have testing at the command line doing a echo like the proc and it works, and then try the proc and it fails. Which would indicate that I am reading what the .cshrc is doing and it somehow is changing the PATH making the proc fail.

I think I will change the test proc to use /bin/echo or /bin/mailx instead of echo/mailx to see if that makes any difference.

Will report back.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of jim-cramer@uiowa.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:22 PM
To: ids@iiug.org
Subject: RE: I have a puzzling situation [28677]

John,

Based on my reasoning, mentioned below, my question to you is:

Do all commands, such as "echo", that are included in the string that SYSTEM hands to the shell to execute, have *explicit paths* ?

If you know the answer to this question, would you mind replying with it to this post?

I have been experiencing what sounds like the same problem that you are having. My problem is with some Stored Procedures which use the SYSTEM call and which had run without problem for years under IDS 10. My problems with the -668 error began right away after switching to IDS 11.7.FC1GE. I would like to determine if what is going on is caused by our environment & code and fix it or, if this is a bug, if I can upgrade to a 11.7 maintenance release where it has been addressed.

If I understand correctly , you said in you post that you thought your tests had been failing on the "echo" command,.

As Art says below in his response about this issue, SYSTEM will execute the command formed by the string that you hand it in a *sub-shell* and not by a login shell.

Perhaps some or all of the users who are having the -668 SYSTEM Call error have the /usr/bin and /bin parts of their $PATH set by the system scripts run by the login shell, and not by their personal "dot files"?

This could scenario could cause a failure of the shell command run by SYSTEM if everything in that command line is not explicitly path'd..

Regards,

Jim Cramer
Univ of Iowa

-----Original Message-----
From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Art Kagel
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:23 PM
To: ids@iiug.org
Subject: Re: I have a puzzling situation [28668]

The user's complete environment will not be set up when SYSTEM is called as the csh profile scripts (/etc/login and $HOME/.login) is only executed by a login shell, not a sub-shell which is what the engine will be using to execute the command. The sub-shel will only execute the user's $HOME/.cshrc script. Maybe the users who have the problem have more of their environment set up in /etc/login or $HOME/.login and are missing something in their .cshrc or maybe they don't have write privs on /tmp (unusual I know, but worth a quick check).

Art

Art S. Kagel
Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves.

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, John Adamski <adamski@graceland.edu>wrote:

> Art, Mark & Paul:
>
> I have verified that the two users I am using in testing have the same
> default shell (csh) and that their PATHs are the same. At least an
> echo $PATH returns the same. Our ERP does strange things with the path
> variable so still could be a PATH thing.
>
> I can't upgrade to FC5 or FC6 as our ERP provider is, hmm how to say
> this politely - doesn't believe in keeping up to date with the latest
> release
of
> software they us. So, that option is not an option. :-(
>
> Since this sounds more like an OS permission problem I will continue
> searching for what is different between my two test users.
>
> Side note: I'm not exactly sure what the production procedure does as
> I don't think the developer told the name of the production proc. He
> just gave me his test proc.
>
> Since all the people they are talking about are in the same department
> (accounting) and I guessing which proc is having the problem. It
> echo's
the
> script call with parameters to a file in /tmp then calls the script.
> It looks like it fails on the echo.
>
> The test proc was created as it is time consuming to setup a situation
> and

> get
> the production proc to run.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ids-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of
> Art Kagel
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:13 AM
> To: ids@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: I have a puzzling situation [28657]
>
> Missed the procedure source below. Make sure that everyone has mailx
> (or
> whatever) in their default PATH or script the commands with a PATH set
> in the script.
>
> Art
>
> Art S. Kagel
> Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
> Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
>
> Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own
> opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the
> IIUG, nor any other

> organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly,
> or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other
> individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor
> those of the entities themselves.
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Art Kagel <art.kagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the SYSTEM command is running a shell script, check to see if the
> > users who are getting the -668 error have a different default shell
> > or have a shell other than their default shell set in the SHELL
> > environment variable that may be returning an error due to some
> > syntax that these users' shells are not recognizing. Or possibly the
> > script lists a shell in the first line (#!bash) but not a full path
> > and these users' PATHs are not set the same as everyone else's. A
> > simple fix to either problem may be to make sure that the script
> > that is executed includes a "#!" line that includes that fill path
> > to the shell it needs
> to
> run properly.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Art S. Kagel
> > Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
> > Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own
> > opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the
> > IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either
> > explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions
> > reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with
> > which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, John Adamski <adamski@graceland.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >> HPUX 11.31 on BL8709c Integrity server IDS 11.70.FC4
> >>
> >> A little over a month ago we upgraded to 11.70 and the developers
> >> say that since then some users have been having problems executing
> >> procedures that have the SYSTEM command in them.
> >>
> >> One of the developers has created a test procedure to help identify
> >> the cause of this reported problem. So far we know of two users
> >> that can't run the test procedure, they get a 668 error. All other
> >> users we have tried can execute the procedure successfully.
> >>
> >> Checking permission on the users that work and the ones that don't
> >> did not identify any cause. We check both OS and Informix.
> >>
> >> We are testing using dbaccess using this command
> >>
> >> execute procedure testsysfail()
> >>
> >> The two users that fail get this message when they run.
> >>
> >> SQL: New Run Modify Use-editor Output Choose Save Info Drop Exit
> >> Run the current SQL statements.
> >>
> >> ----------------------- cars@carsitcp ---------- Press CTRL-W for
> >> Help
> >> --------
> >>
> >> (expression)
> >>
> >> Failed, error 668
> >>
> >> 1 row(s) retrieved.
> >>
> >> I have included the latest version of the test procedure that the
> >> developer is using below. Does anyone have any idea what might be
> >> causing these two users to get a 668 error when they run the
> >> procedure? Or what I might do to resolve this?
> >>
> >> {
> >> Revision Information (Automatically maintained by 'make' - DON'T
> >> CHANGE)
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> ----
> >> $Header: procskeleton,v 8.0 2002/05/09 08:36:56 debarthe Released $
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> --
> >> ----
> >> }
> >> drop procedure testsysfail;
> >>
> >> create procedure testsysfail()
> >> returning char(32);
> >>
> >> {The SQL data type subset includes all the SQL data types except
> >> BYTE, SERIAL, and TEXT.} {char, nchar, date, datetime, decimal,
> >> numeric, float, integer, money smallfloat, smallint, real, varchar,
> >> nvarchar {define global var1 integer default default 0;} {define
> >> var2 like id_rec.ss_no;} {define var3 char(10);}
> >>
> >> define sys_var char(256);
> >>
> >> {This exception traps for error 284 multiple records from subquery
> >> and must immediately follow the defines} on exception in (-668)
> >>
> >> return "Failed, error 668";
> >> end exception;
> >>
> >> Set isolation to dirty read;
> >>
> >> set optimization low;
> >>
> >> --set debug file to "debugxxx" with append; --trace on;
> >> -- let sys_var = "echo this is a test > /tmp/"||USER||"test.test";
> >>
> >> let sys_var = "mailx -s 'This is a test' debarthe"; system sys_var;
> >>
> >> return "succeded";
> >> end procedure;
> >>
> >> grant execute on testsysfail to public;
> >>
> >> {Add an execute for testing and to try to force optimization}
> >>
> >> --execute procedure testsysfail();
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> >> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --e89a8f3ba7836ca74204cd3342fd
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>

--e89a8f3b9c3f13a6f204cd35eb62

****************************************************************************
***
Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.

*******************************************************************************
Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.

Messages In This Thread

• I have a puzzling situation
  John Adamski -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 9:48 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:09 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:12 a.m.
    • RE: I have a puzzling situation
      John Adamski -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 12:28 p.m.
      • Re: I have a puzzling situation
        Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 1:22 p.m.
        • RE: I have a puzzling situation
          jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Tuesday, 30 October 2012, at 2:21 p.m.
          • RE: I have a puzzling situation
            John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 10:58 a.m.
            • RE: I have a puzzling situation
              jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 12:50 p.m.
              • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                John Adamski -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 10:09 a.m.
                • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                  jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 11:20 a.m.
                  • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                    John Adamski -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 3:54 p.m.
                    • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                      jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 4:44 p.m.
                    • Re: RE: I have a puzzling situation
                      JASON HARRIS -- Friday, 2 November 2012, at 12:33 a.m.
                • RE: I have a puzzling situation
                  jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 1:53 p.m.
                  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
                    David Zinder -- Thursday, 1 November 2012, at 2:14 p.m.
    • Re: I have a puzzling situation
      FRANK J. COMPUTER -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:01 a.m.
      • RE: I have a puzzling situation
        John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 11:12 a.m.
        • RE: I have a puzzling situation
          david@smooth1.co.uk -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 12:02 p.m.
          • RE: I have a puzzling situation
            John Adamski -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:11 p.m.
            • RE: I have a puzzling situation
              jim-cramer@uiowa.edu -- Wednesday, 31 October 2012, at 4:55 p.m.
  • RE: I have a puzzling situation
    Mark Tyrer -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:21 a.m.
    • Re: I have a puzzling situation
      Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:36 a.m.
      • RE: I have a puzzling situation
        Paul Watson -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 10:42 a.m.
        • Re: I have a puzzling situation
          Art Kagel -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 11:07 a.m.
  • Re: I have a puzzling situation
    Jonathan Leffler -- Monday, 29 October 2012, at 1:19 p.m.

IDS Forum is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.12.