Re: host-user-contaminated QA check

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 13:11 -0600, Seebs wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:17:29 +0100
> Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 11:12 -0600, Seebs wrote:
> > > > 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.
> 
> > But that's not the kind of the problem detected by the QA check, is
> > it?
> > 
> > It warns when the owner of the file is the same as the user who did
> > the build, but because root isn't (normally) used for building, files
> > accidentally owned by root on the target won't trigger the warning.
> 
> Right. But the purpose of that is to detect files which didn't get
> their ownership correctly set. If we change to a default which we can't
> detect, then we can't detect "files which were supposed to have an
> ownership but didn't get it".

Got it - that's the same concern I had with 'it hides
such sloppy use of "cp"'.

> ("Created under pseudo" is enough to count as "ownership determined by
> recipe", it doesn't have to be an explicit chown.)

One could argue that an implicit "created during build -> owned by root"
follows the same logic. But as the check as it is now did find a real
issue and also others in the past (the pseudo bugs that Chris
mentioned), let's keep it.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.