varnishadm exit code 200
martynas at atomgraph.com
Sat Oct 2 22:54:16 UTC 2021
I thought that was a non-zero exit code but it's not :)
We just noticed a change -- in the earlier version we used (not sure
which now, I think 4.x) there was no output from varnishadm.
We'll just send the 200 to /dev/null then.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:39 AM Guillaume Quintard
<guillaume.quintard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 200 means the command passed to varnish, via varnishadm, succeeded. What makes you think it failed?
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 15:24 Martynas Jusevičius <martynas at atomgraph.com> wrote:
>> Actually it does not seem to be the exit code. I tried checking and it
>> looks like the exit code is 0:
>> root at dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /"
>> root at dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# test $? -eq 0 || echo "Error"
>> root at dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish#
>> So where is that "200" coming from?
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:14 AM Martynas Jusevičius
>> <martynas at atomgraph.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > We recently switched to the varnish:latest container and based an
>> > unprivileged image on it (entrypoint runs as USER varnish):
>> > https://github.com/AtomGraph/varnish/blob/official-image/Dockerfile
>> > We noticed that our varnishadm commands started failing. More specifically:
>> > root at dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /"
>> > 200
>> > As I understand it's a 200 exit code, which means varnishadm failed:
>> > https://varnish-cache.org/docs/5.1/reference/varnishadm.html#exit-status
>> > What does 200 mean exactly? I couldn't find any code list.
>> > My guess is that this has to do with the unprivileged varnish user,
>> > but I'm not sure what it takes to fix it.
>> > Martynas
>> varnish-misc mailing list
>> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
More information about the varnish-misc