| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:51:31PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/09/2014 07:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>> c) 'esudo' helper [3]. This is a more generic form of (2), with |
| 4 |
> >>> support for other potential privilege changes. |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
.. |
| 7 |
> > I don't think we'd use the reference 'sudo' impl. Rather some |
| 8 |
> > in-portage helper, possibly setuid. Or portage's IPC but that would |
| 9 |
> > imply running the command in an isolated environment (possibly |
| 10 |
> > beneficial). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The environment doesn't necessarily have to be isolated, since we could |
| 13 |
> extend the existing environment saving/loading support to be used for by |
| 14 |
> esudo. The steps to implement the shared environment could be as follows: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 1) When esudo is called, it saves the current (unprivileged) bash |
| 17 |
> environment to a file. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 2) esudo uses IPC to request that a process with elevated privileges be |
| 20 |
> launched to run a specific command using the saved environment, and that |
| 21 |
> the environment of the elevated process be saved to a file after the |
| 22 |
> command completes. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't think it's going to be quite that easy to get the output env, |
| 25 |
certainly not from some random command; tbh I don't even see the need |
| 26 |
for it, unless I'm missing something. From the "elevated process" after |
| 27 |
it waits on the child, but not from the child unless you control the |
| 28 |
code. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> 3) Before esudo returns, it loads the environment that was saved by the |
| 31 |
> elevated process before it exited. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What's the use-case for this part? I could see it with a function, but |
| 34 |
then you just run that as part of the ebuild. For running a specific |
| 35 |
command to access a device with privilege, or to add a user etc, I |
| 36 |
don't really see the point. (so why bother with the implementation |
| 37 |
complexity.) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Other than that, I agree esudo is the best approach, and gives us |
| 40 |
much better granularity over privilege escalation, as discussed in |
| 41 |
the bug. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Part of me thinks though, that it'd be much cleaner to give the |
| 44 |
portage user access to sudo. Isn't that effectively the purpose |
| 45 |
of the "suid helper"? In which case we get all the options for |
| 46 |
env etc, of sudo, and the admin gets to configure it along with |
| 47 |
the normal wheel setup. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Just a thought. |
| 50 |
Regards, |
| 51 |
igli |
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives