Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix][linux] permission problem merging apr-util on linux
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:10:24
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix][linux] permission problem merging apr-util on linux by Armando Di Cianno
Just putting in my two cents:

I think we should either make functions that do the chown stuff, like
fperms does, or add functions like get_root_uid.  If the permissions are
set, this usually means they aren't set correctly from the ebuild
perspective.  portage_uid != root_uid, but a function like get_root_uid
could easily do some if-ing on platforms, and also get around the ugly 0
workaround for Solaris/Darwin/FreeBSD where the root group is not
'root', but sys, wheel, or whatever.

On 11-04-2007 09:04:29 -0400, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Apr 11, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > Thing is that 'chown -R root:0' works on linux, while on non-linux it > > does not. > > > > I'm unsure how to do in prefix: > > 1) avoid chown in prefix (as the patch does currently) > > 2) chown to "$PORTAGE_INST_USER:$PORTAGE_INST_GID" instead of "root:0" > > This has been perennial question for me, since I starting moving many > ebuilds to prefix, so I'd like to start a discussion on it. > > Obviously, user-privilege use of prefix-portage is sort the main way, as far > as I can tell, that people use it right now. As a hack -- and as I mainly > work on Darwin, atm -- I've been wrapping or skipping > chown/chmod/fperms/etceteras calls in 'if [ "${KERNEL}" == "Darwin" ]', and > ewarn'ng that "this operation is not happening'. This has worked -- as a > hack --but raises some questions: if a package requires a change of > permission for security reasons, especially, it can be considered blatantly > wrong to _not_ be doing the change of permissions. > > Also, I'd like prefix-portage to work in the classic way as root, or with > sudo, as well as fully working for a normal, non-privileged user. > > Now, a number of packages simply want to ensure that they have a user to run > as, and the directories/homes/whatever are owned by that user. In this > case, working with user privileges, it's easy enough to ensure installed > files bear the permissions of the user running emerge. > > For packages that practically *require* permission changes, I suggest > something like the following; if we can inject userpriv as the 'default' > into FEATURES, we can simply RESTRICT these temperamental-security-wise > ebuilds with userpriv. > > If we do something like the above, we can easily move all the > chown/chmod/fperms calls to "echown, echmod, efperms" and have these > decisions happen in the background (or tossing an error that sudo is > required or something). > > Specifics aside, I'd like to know if this is generally the idea most of us > have in our heads about how prefix-portage should work. And then, > specifically, I wonder if we can co-opt 'userpriv' in that way, since it > seems pretty apt to be used in this fashion. > > __armando > aka fafhrd > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFGHNzg1uuRqaoClwIRAhBUAJoCap/qHrjoWgmqX13hUmNhTFWHEgCeJT3D > AlUApd1EWMQ1DhskjYjVvP4= > =s+bC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list >
-- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix][linux] permission problem mergingapr-util on linux Michael Haubenwallner <michael.haubenwallner@×××××××.at>