From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932393AbWFYWQW (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:16:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932395AbWFYWQW (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:16:22 -0400 Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.207]:10145 "HELO smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932393AbWFYWQV (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:16:21 -0400 Message-ID: <449F0B44.6050407@sbcglobal.net> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:16:36 -0500 From: Matthew Frost Reply-To: artusemrys@sbcglobal.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Hudson CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernelsources writeable for everyone?! References: <200606242000.51024.damage@rooties.de> <20060624181702.GG27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> <1151198452.6508.10.camel@mjollnir> <449E216E.8010508@sbcglobal.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joshua Hudson wrote: > I feel like asking how they initially get set to world-writable. To me > it means that the tree that is being tarred up for distribution is > world-writible. I sure hope that it is a single-user box. > - Yeah. Having said, "Take advice", I'm also curious as to just the why/how of the current configuration and the work patterns that create it. I get the impression that there *is* a reason for it, because if it were just a security issue, I can't see this much resistance to changing it. Sane tar permissions and sensible usage aside. The kernel untar-and-compile procedure has been documented this way since at least 2000, from Linus. There's a good recent (and short) discussion from Jesper Juhl on LXer that references it, as well. http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0007.3/0587.html http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/22410/ The previous two l-k threads I can find on this topic (one listed earlier in this thread, one referenced from it) don't seem to be any more revelatory about why the tarball is as it is. I might guess that it has to do with how changes get checked in, but I also have the vague memory that these aren't tar()ed on a development box. I could be wrong. Consider me seconding the "Why?" aspect, if anybody's still listening. :) Matt