1 |
On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:50 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 1/18/20 7:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:38 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> But now users have to follow one more step (create /home/amavis) when |
7 |
> >> setting up amavisd-new. Is the QA check really assuring a quality user |
8 |
> >> experience here? |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Lots of daemons need a home directory for their users, and usually |
12 |
> > they manage to get by in /var/lib. It really seems like a bad |
13 |
> > practice to start having packages creating stuff in /home. Certainly |
14 |
> > I don't want random daemons sticking stuff in /home, which I manage |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> |
17 |
> * The daemon DOES NOT need a home directory for its user. |
18 |
> * I DO NOT want to install anything to anyone's home directory. |
19 |
|
20 |
My concern isn't with installing stuff to "anyone's home directory." |
21 |
My concern is with creating ANYTHING in /home. |
22 |
|
23 |
Daemons are local users. There is no guarantee that /home is a local |
24 |
filesystem. Heck, there is no guarantee that /home is even mounted |
25 |
when portage is running. Portage shouldn't be touching /home at all. |
26 |
With stuff like automounted or encrypted home directories and |
27 |
systemd-homed and so on it seems like it is even more important to |
28 |
avoid sticking stuff in /home (and this is hardly something started by |
29 |
systemd - stuff in /home that is non-static has been a thing for some |
30 |
time - certainly it was happening in the 90s on some IRIX workstations |
31 |
I used). |
32 |
|
33 |
> * With respect to user.eclass, I'm proposing that /home be treated |
34 |
> EXACTLY THE SAME as it always has been. |
35 |
|
36 |
I'm not aware that it was ever considered good practice to stick stuff |
37 |
in /home. I suspect it just wasn't on QA's radar in the past. |
38 |
|
39 |
> |
40 |
> All I want to do is *set* a user's home directory to /home/foo. |
41 |
|
42 |
You don't just want to "set" it. You want to create the directory, |
43 |
which is modifying the filesystem (otherwise, why have a .keepdir?). |
44 |
And setting a home directory to something that doesn't exist doesn't |
45 |
seem like an improvement unless it is /dev/null. |
46 |
|
47 |
I get though that the daemon itself doesn't use the home directory, |
48 |
and that you just want it for configuring other stuff it might launch. |
49 |
|
50 |
> Spamassassin itself is a better example than amavis. We already set the |
51 |
> spamd user's home directory to /home/spamd with user.eclass. We don't |
52 |
> install anything there, and this works fine. If a human logs into that |
53 |
> account and generates some configuration in ~/.spamassassin, then it's |
54 |
> within the spirit of the FHS to have that data stored in /home. |
55 |
|
56 |
Looks like we might have another package to deal with, and perhaps |
57 |
others as well, depending on what comes out of this thread. |
58 |
|
59 |
> Now, with GLEP 81, we get a QA warning for that, because the eclass |
60 |
> installs a keepdir file there. I would like things to remain exactly as |
61 |
> they are, with no QA warning. Otherwise, we have to tell users to move |
62 |
> /home/spamd to /var/lib/spamd-home or something stupid like that. I can |
63 |
> think of no good reason to do so. |
64 |
|
65 |
Well, you won't get QA warnings from the tinderbox if the default home |
66 |
isn't under /home. Users who already have the home there might get |
67 |
warnings at install time. They can just ignore them. You could |
68 |
output an einfo to explain the situation to the user. If they're fine |
69 |
with /home then they can ignore the warning, and if they want to move |
70 |
it they can do so. |
71 |
|
72 |
I'll also note that GLEP 81 itself is silent on WHERE home directories |
73 |
should be placed. If some sort of definitive answer comes out of this |
74 |
thread the GLEP should probably be updated to reflect this, unless |
75 |
there is a better place to put it. Seems like the fact that this |
76 |
practice was undocumented in the past is part of how we got to where |
77 |
we're at. |
78 |
|
79 |
> > It seems like the straightforward solution is to stick everything in |
80 |
> > /var/lib/amavis, and fix things so that everything has the right |
81 |
> > permissions regardless of install order. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> Please stop telling people to do this. Calling chown on the live |
84 |
> filesystem is rarely safe, and I already fixed one root exploit (bug |
85 |
> 630836) in the amavisd-new ebuild from the last guy who tried to adjust |
86 |
> wrong permissions after the fact. |
87 |
|
88 |
That bug appears to be restricted. Perhaps it is embargoed? If not, |
89 |
then it probably shouldn't be restricted, especially if already fixed |
90 |
and GLSA'ed (and if it wasn't GLSA'ed then it isn't fixed, not that |
91 |
this has anything to do with you most likely). |
92 |
|
93 |
Portage should provide a safe mechanism to fix permissions. Or we |
94 |
should just avoid nesting user home directories inside directories |
95 |
that will be written to by that user. |
96 |
|
97 |
If this is the same hard-linking concern as with tmpfiles.d then |
98 |
somebody really just needs to fix POSIX. :) But as a workaround just |
99 |
avoiding nesting seems like the simpler solution... |
100 |
|
101 |
Just on a side note, I'm just stating an opinion here. I'm not in QA. |
102 |
Nobody should be construing my posts as "telling people" to do |
103 |
anything. And I do realize that you're just inheriting a situation |
104 |
that goes back probably quite a long time - please don't take anything |
105 |
as a personal criticism. Maybe this stuff wasn't entirely thought out |
106 |
in the past, but going forward we should try to come up with the best |
107 |
solution, and then try to find the most reasonable way to get from |
108 |
here to there. |
109 |
|
110 |
> > Another option is to have /var/lib/amavis/home and /var/lib/amavis/work. |
111 |
> |
112 |
> This is better-looking than /var/lib/amavis-home, but it's still |
113 |
> violating the spirit of the FHS to avoid triggering a warning on a dummy |
114 |
> file. |
115 |
|
116 |
Do you have a more FHS-compliant suggestion? Clearly /home isn't |
117 |
particularly FHS-compliant: |
118 |
|
119 |
/home is a fairly standard concept, but it is clearly a site-specific |
120 |
filesystem. The setup will differ from host to host. |
121 |
Non-login accounts created for administrative purposes often have |
122 |
their home directories elsewhere. |
123 |
|
124 |
This actually seems like a bit of an FHS gap. IMO /var/lib is the |
125 |
lesser evil here, but if there is something else more FHS-appropriate |
126 |
that could work. FHS says that users shouldn't have to touch /var/lib |
127 |
to configure a daemon, but as you've pointed out this isn't about |
128 |
configuring the daemon itself, but rather helpers that it might run |
129 |
after the user configures it to do so. |
130 |
|
131 |
-- |
132 |
Rich |