Re: Directory permissions and ownership -- RFC

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 6/21/11 5:13 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> I like that better then trying to wrap do_install and such with special code.
> 
> It should be fairly easy to set the default for do_install and do_package then.
>  I wonder if there would be a way to "notice" and flag as possible errors tasks
> running between do_install and do_package (in a single recipe) that may need the
> umask set as well.
> 
> --Mark

I worked out a patch to bitbake for this:

http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/bitbake&id=abc25d84b3c0b766bb5d45c0354936eaa4d605c4

The associated changes to oe-core:

Revert of the original umask patch:

http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=845ae082627c6a25304e10e72c655e9197f62c01

New patch that enables umask is specific areas:

http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=03eb6afb4d1d40ef421085d847cbc42e1795863f

---

Any comments.  I'm not sure I like this task approach, simply because it's more
complicated.  But what I am testing now enables umask of 022 in:

do_install
do_package
do_rootfs
rootfs_<pkg>_do_rootfs
do_populate_sysroot
adt-installer_1.0.bb: do_deploy
linux-tools.inc: do_install_perf

I think that covers everywhere it will be needed...

--Mark

> On 6/21/11 5:05 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 14:12 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>> On 6/21/11 1:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:43 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>>> Adjust the umask to 022.  This resolves the problem of dynamically generated
>>>>> directories (mkdir -p) and specific files (touch foo) having odd permissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=d8470b6a8efdbba04cef5d4dc1ce12720fe83621
>>>>
>>>> Are you confident that this isn't going to break anything like
>>>> group-shared DL_DIRs?  I'm not entirely thrilled about forcing the umask
>>>> to 022 for everything that bitbake does, although I can see that making
>>>> it be so for particular tasks like do_install() might have some merit.
>>>> Even in the latter case, though, I wonder whether we should just be
>>>> paying more attention to recipe hygiene and using "install -m ..." with
>>>> the permissions that we actually want.
>>>
>>> This is why I bring this up.. I'm a bit concerned that doing it generally will
>>> have unintended consequences.  So far I am not aware of any.  Moving it to a
>>> different place in the process may be better.  The only issue I've found so far
>>> is that just coding int into "do_install" really isn't an option.  Between the
>>> custom do_install components, various classes, etc.. it's difficult in the
>>> current infrastructure to find a centralized location to set the value.
>>>
>>> (I'd love to be corrected if someone things of another way of doing it.)  The
>>> setting of the umask is a very low cost operation, so doing it for certain steps
>>> shouldn't cause a performance penalty... but until we figure that out this is
>>> the best and easiest solution I've come up with.
>>
>> How about a umask flag for tasks?
>>
>> If bitbake sees it for a given task it would set the umask as indicated
>> for the task. Cheap and easy and would only impact do_install tasks...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core