[gentoo-dev] RFC: Do we still want group based permissions for storage and power devices in light of ConsoleKit and Policykit?

[Samuli Suominen]

Let's start with generalized example so everyone gets the idea...

Reference: man 8 pklocalauthority

/etc/polkit-1/localauthority/10-vendor.d/example-udisks.pkla

[Local users]
Identity=unix-group:plugdev
Action=org.freedesktop.udisks.*
ResultAny=yes
ResultInactive=yes
ResultActive=yes

The above file would grant permission with or without active local
ConsoleKit session to users in plugdev group to everything udisks handles.

Notice that getting active ConsoleKit session you are now required to
use PAM, or Display Manager like GDM with internal ConsoleKit support.

Note that the PAM method requires you to have CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL=y
support enabled in kernel to get valid sessionid string and not all
minor archs support this kernel option.


We could have similar .pkla files also for other stuff like bluetooth,
networkmanager, shutdown/reboot, suspend and hibernate (upower), and the
list continues.

The benefits are somewhat clear, things would work out of box for remote
users beloging to right group, PAM-less users, as well as minor arches.

The downside of this is that most users would propably end up using this
as workaround for inactive ConsoleKit sessions that should really be
local, but the user is just failing to configure his system in proper
state to gain it (launching the X wrong way, wrong kernel opts, ...)

And if we want this, should we stick to generalized plugdev group?

Or perhaps group wheel for shutdown/reboot.   Group storage for udisks.
Group power for upower (hibernate, suspend).  Group bluetooth for bluez.
 Group network for networkmanager?    (Just throwing ideas...)

So... any comments before I just pick what I think is best and commit
the .pkla files (or not).  I'm really 50-50 on this...

Would like to get this decided before p.masking HAL.