Host contamination that isn't

Host contamination that isn't

[Gary Thomas]

I'm getting a lot of messages like this:
   amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due 
to host contamination
   amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amcrypt-ossl is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may 
be due to host contamination
   amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amvault is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due 
to host contamination

In reality, this is not really a problem.  I'm building a recipe
which adds a user to my system image that just happens to have the
same UID as mine (first user added, go figure).  So the messages in
this case are quite bogus.

How can I avoid them?  When I add my extra user to my image, is
there a way to force the UID/GID to something I know is "safe"?

Thanks

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Host contamination that isn't

[Gary Thomas]

On 2016-03-08 14:33, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I'm getting a lot of messages like this:
>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due
> to host contamination
>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amcrypt-ossl is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may
> be due to host contamination
>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amvault is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due
> to host contamination
>
> In reality, this is not really a problem.  I'm building a recipe
> which adds a user to my system image that just happens to have the
> same UID as mine (first user added, go figure).  So the messages in
> this case are quite bogus.
>
> How can I avoid them?  When I add my extra user to my image, is
> there a way to force the UID/GID to something I know is "safe"?

I solved this by adding '--system' to my USERADD setup.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Host contamination that isn't

[Gary Thomas]

On 2016-03-09 08:50, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2016-03-08 14:33, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> I'm getting a lot of messages like this:
>>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due
>> to host contamination
>>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amcrypt-ossl is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may
>> be due to host contamination
>>    amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amvault is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due
>> to host contamination
>>
>> In reality, this is not really a problem.  I'm building a recipe
>> which adds a user to my system image that just happens to have the
>> same UID as mine (first user added, go figure).  So the messages in
>> this case are quite bogus.
>>
>> How can I avoid them?  When I add my extra user to my image, is
>> there a way to force the UID/GID to something I know is "safe"?
>
> I solved this by adding '--system' to my USERADD setup.
>

BTW, if I run 'bitbake <package> -c cleanall' where <package> is the
name of my recipe that is creating a user (in this case amanda), shouldn't
that user/group be removed from the sysroot?  It's not and it took me a
long time to realize this - my first attempts at adjusting the USERADD
parameters were simply being ignored because the user still existed.

Maybe this is a bug [that I should file]?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Host contamination that isn't

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On 9 March 2016 at 08:28, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:

> BTW, if I run 'bitbake <package> -c cleanall' where <package> is the
> name of my recipe that is creating a user (in this case amanda), shouldn't
> that user/group be removed from the sysroot?  It's not and it took me a
> long time to realize this - my first attempts at adjusting the USERADD
> parameters were simply being ignored because the user still existed.
>
> Maybe this is a bug [that I should file]?
>

Probably, and yes please.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 969 bytes --]

Re: Host contamination that isn't

[Gary Thomas]

On 03/15/2016 12:44 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 9 March 2016 at 08:28, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com <mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com>> wrote:
>
>     BTW, if I run 'bitbake <package> -c cleanall' where <package> is the
>     name of my recipe that is creating a user (in this case amanda), shouldn't
>     that user/group be removed from the sysroot?  It's not and it took me a
>     long time to realize this - my first attempts at adjusting the USERADD
>     parameters were simply being ignored because the user still existed.
>
>     Maybe this is a bug [that I should file]?
>
>
> Probably, and yes please.

Done: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9262

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------