| 1 |
On 8/17/19 12:29 AM, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Any reason why sharing home directories isn't simply forbidden? |
| 4 |
> This is sure to blow on us at some point if there is shared home directories. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> ... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Shouldn't this be owned instead of writable? I'm pretty sure we can |
| 9 |
> have cases where no having write permissions is prefered for security. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The weak wording is for two reasons: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* I'm confident that these are all good ideas, but not 100% certain. |
| 14 |
This is new stuff, and what constitutes a "best practice" is likely |
| 15 |
to change. If a corner case comes up, I don't want to have dug us |
| 16 |
into a hole by outlawing something that turns out to be reasonable |
| 17 |
in some situations. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* If this goes into the devmanual, it would be a new policy, and it |
| 20 |
therefore needs some consensus among developers. It's a lot easier |
| 21 |
to get consensus for a warning than it is for a ban. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
>> 5 As a corollary of the previous item, it is highly suspicious for |
| 25 |
>> an acct-user package to set ACCT_USER_HOME_OWNER="root:root". |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Is there cases where this would be used? It makes no sense to me for a |
| 28 |
> home to belong to root. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It's happened in two cases so far, both leading to some badness. It's a |
| 32 |
symptom of some other problem, but checking the variable for "root:root" |
| 33 |
in e.g. repoman is a lot easier than running a tinderbox build to see if |
| 34 |
there's a directory collision. |
Archives