Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval

[William Hubbs]

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 02:46:24PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 08:15:13PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-11-28 at 13:06 -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 11:06:36AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 09:36:32AM +0300, Eray Aslan wrote:
> > > > > > 1/ Static allocation does not really solve a problem. Not really not
> > > > > > nowadays
> > > > > > 2/ We cant keep adding new IDs to a distribution as new software gets
> > > > > > added - one side is unbounded.  This is losing game.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure. In practice, the number of packages is limited. (And if the
> > > > argument was valid, it would apply to dynamic alloction too.)
> > > >
> > > > > > Switching back to dynamic allocation seems to be the best option.
> > > >
> > > > > I realize I'm very late to this party, but +1 from me also.
> > > >
> > > > > We should use dynamic uid/git assignment by default and maybe provide
> > > > > a way to force certain uids/gids to be constant if users want this.
> > > >
> > > > While the rationale for static allocation that made it into GLEP 81 [1]
> > > > is rather weak, several people had argued in favour of it on the mailing
> > > > list [2].
> > > >
> > > > In any case, let's cross that bridge when we reach it. For now, we're
> > > > good with 250 additional IDs.
> > >
> > > It is inevitable that we will reach this bridge again -- whether or not
> > > it is in a month or a year, it will happen.
> > >
> > > Why are we just kicking the can down the road instead of admitting that
> > > static allocation wasn't a good idea and going back to dynamic
> > > allocation? Let's find out what the people who argued for static
> > > allocation think.
> > >
> >
> > Why are you assuming that something "wasn't a good idea" just because
> > you think so?
>
> ulm and others on the thread also mentioned the possibility of going
> back to dynamic allocation, so it isn't just me who brought it up.
>
> I honestly am just looking for a discussion.
>
> Do other distros statically allocate all of their system users? If not,
> why do we by default? I understand why enterprise users might need to,
> and they can with the glep 81 eclasses by setting uids/gids in
> make.conf, but is there a reason we force the issue at the distro level
> and ban -1 as the setting for ACCT_USER_ID and ACCT_GROUP_ID?
>
> William
>


Ok, based on floppym's response, I'm going to start a new thread.

William