| 1 |
On Fri, 2021-08-13 at 12:31 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Freitag, 13. August 2021, 11:06:09 CEST schrieb Ulrich Mueller: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Am Donnerstag, 12. August 2021, 19:39:08 CEST schrieb Michael |
| 5 |
> > > Orlitzky: |
| 6 |
> > > > On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 17:22 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > The default owner is root:root anyway. |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > This is only true of you don't call insopts earlier with some |
| 10 |
> > > > other |
| 11 |
> > > > value. I see "insopts -o root -g qmail -m 700" in there so you |
| 12 |
> > > > might |
| 13 |
> > > > want to double check. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > Not my day. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > Ok, given that there are several places that change users and |
| 18 |
> > > groups |
| 19 |
> > > and the subfunctions are not always called it would be very few |
| 20 |
> > > places |
| 21 |
> > > where I can remove the root:root (about 3) and be sure that |
| 22 |
> > > everything |
| 23 |
> > > works. For that reason I would just keep them all and go back to |
| 24 |
> > > the |
| 25 |
> > > initial patch 2. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > I believe the method of choice would be to execute the offending |
| 28 |
> > insopts/doins pair in a subshell, i.e. put a ( ) pair around them. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I will just do it the other way: explicitly reset it to defaults in |
| 31 |
> the 2 |
| 32 |
> functions that actually set something special. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Please us subshells instead, it makes local reasoning about the side- |
| 35 |
effects much easier. |
Archives