From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFTeV-00041F-Sk for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:05:48 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2012 09:56:36 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="125307372" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.141]) ([10.255.12.141]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2012 09:56:36 -0700 Message-ID: <4F7C7D44.3010609@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:56:36 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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> <4F708F78.4020502@opendreambox.org> In-Reply-To: <4F708F78.4020502@opendreambox.org> 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: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:05:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/26/2012 08:47 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > 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};" Merged this patch to OE-Core Thanks Sau!