From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.plethora.net (mail.seebs.net [162.221.74.143]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B308B60119 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from seebsdell (home.seebs.net [74.122.98.108]) by mail.plethora.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E27692ADCE3; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:12:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:12:01 -0600 From: Seebs To: Patrick Ohly Message-ID: <20170202111201.3fcee3fa@seebsdell> In-Reply-To: <1486053547.14889.50.camel@intel.com> References: <1486031880.14889.35.camel@intel.com> <20170202102105.07a3bb91@seebsdell> <1486053547.14889.50.camel@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: OpenEmbedded Subject: Re: host-user-contaminated QA check X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:12:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:39:07 +0100 Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 10:21 -0600, Seebs wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 11:38:00 +0100 > > Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > > Why do we make the real user ID on the build system visible at all > > > when running under pseudo? The uid and user name have no meaning > > > there, as the user won't exist on the target system. Instead we > > > could map the owner of all files to root:root by default, i.e. in > > > those cases where no other ownership is recorded in the pseudo > > > database. > > > > We could. Honestly, the underlying reason we don't is at least in > > part that that makes the behavior differ more from the behavior of > > "sudo"; with sudo, you see actual ownerships. But that's less > > applicable here. > > > > I would be more inclined to report a Definitely Absolutely Not Okay > > user ID, like 65533. (65534 and 65535 have both been used as Magic > > Cookies in the past, I think.) > > I had considered that approach myself, too. It would make the QA check > reliable and in that sense solve the problem. > > But I find mapping to root:root more attractive because it makes > packaging simpler (less worries about accidentally copying the > original uid) and the builds faster (no need to run the QA check). Hmm. I think I would rather have the QA check, because if a file's supposed to be non-root, and ends up root instead, that could cause subtle problems, but we'd no longer have a way to *detect* those problems. -s