From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([82.149.226.172]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SCCHF-0001WY-Oq for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:56:13 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A5D315A804; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:47:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.dream-property.net Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dream-property.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tdgMEYNvjk8L; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:47:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.22.22.61] (drms-590c5e52.pool.mediaWays.net [89.12.94.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69EFC315A801; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:47:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F708F78.4020502@opendreambox.org> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:47:04 +0200 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120310 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <1331345726-9577-1-git-send-email-obi@opendreambox.org> <4F5E1672.7090706@windriver.com> <1331567634.15192.20.camel@ted> <4F6CDA62.3070908@opendreambox.org> <1332761648.28414.113.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1332761648.28414.113.camel@ted> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] package_ipk: apply umask to control and conffiles X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:56:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 26.03.2012 13:34, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:17 +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >> On 12.03.2012 16:53, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 10:29 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >>>> On 3/9/12 8:15 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>>> * Explicitly set umask to 022. Otherwise the build system's >>>>> umask leaks into the image. >>>> >>>> I'm surprised that do_package_ipk[umask] didn't work. Perhaps its the way it's >>>> being invoked that is the issue. (If bitbake doesn't run it, but something else >>>> does.. then the umask setting doesn't get used.) >>>> >>>> As for the change of the umask, the changes appear to be specific to the ipk >>>> case. Is this the desired behavior, or could deb and rpm suffer from similar >>>> issues? (I'm not familiar enough with opkg to know how it handles umask >>>> settings during package install/rootfs construction..) >>>> >>>> I believe that RPM sets a default umask when it goes through it's package >>>> installs/rootfs generation. But does DEB? >>> >>> I'm also a bit worried about this patch. I'd like to understand why a >>> task level umask doesn't work. That shouldn't even make any difference >>> since the permissions/owners/users from install should be getting >>> used... >> >> can you please give some advise on how to continue with this issue? > > I understand half the problem now, the files with the issues are ones > created during the package_ipk task. That addresses one of my big > concerns. > > The second thing I'd like to understand is why a task level umask > doesn't resolve this. Looking at what you tried, this might be as simple > as a typo: > > do_package_ipk[umask] = "022" > > when you really want: > > do_package_write_ipk[umask] = "022" Richard, thank you, that did it. It wasn't a typo, but lack of understanding of the "magic" behind it, as I tried to apply the umask to the do_package_ipk function instead of the do_package_write_ipk *task*. Please see below for an updated patch. Regards, Andreas > If that works, lets set this for deb and rpm too so we're consistent and > I'll merge that patch :) >From f9e4707d7a619e29530ac144ae1aba9d9e406884 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andreas Oberritter Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:11:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] package_{deb,ipk,rpm}: apply umask to files generated in do_package_write_{deb,ipk,rpm} * Explicitly set umask to 022. Otherwise the build system's umask may leak into the image. Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter --- meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass | 1 + meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass | 1 + meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass | 1 + 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass b/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass index 1f7ec9c..9880258 100644 --- a/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass @@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ python do_package_write_deb () { bb.build.exec_func("do_package_deb", d) } do_package_write_deb[dirs] = "${PKGWRITEDIRDEB}" +do_package_write_deb[umask] = "022" addtask package_write_deb before do_package_write after do_package diff --git a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass index 565ef93..e4a217b 100644 --- a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ python do_package_write_ipk () { bb.build.exec_func("do_package_ipk", d) } do_package_write_ipk[dirs] = "${PKGWRITEDIRIPK}" +do_package_write_ipk[umask] = "022" addtask package_write_ipk before do_package_write after do_package PACKAGEINDEXES += "package_update_index_ipk;" diff --git a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass index e83fc55..daa9301 100644 --- a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass @@ -1056,6 +1056,7 @@ python do_package_write_rpm () { } do_package_write_rpm[dirs] = "${PKGWRITEDIRRPM}" +do_package_write_rpm[umask] = "022" addtask package_write_rpm before do_package_write after do_package PACKAGEINDEXES += "package_update_index_rpm; createrepo ${DEPLOY_DIR_RPM};" -- 1.7.5.4