Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Shared state for all !

[Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com>]

On 09/05/12 19:15, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Joshua Lock<josh@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/05/12 17:50, Chris Larson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Joshua Lock<josh@linux.intel.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In Yocto #2041[2]  Mark reported an issue with reusing shared state as a
>>>> different user on the same machine.
>>>>
>>>> Since the whole purpose of shared state is that it be shared I decided to
>>>> dig
>>>> into this issue. I wanted to at least be able to use the shared-state
>>>> cache of
>>>> a different user without error, even if all of the objects aren't
>>>> actually used
>>>> (i.e. native, at least on the Edison branch I did most of the testing
>>>> with).
>>>>
>>>> This is an RFC mainly because it changes the permissions of created
>>>> directories,
>>>> sstate files and siginfo files from what they have traditionally been.
>>>>
>>>> There is more of the rhyme an reason in the patch commit headers and
>>>> comments
>>>> but tl;dr bb.mkdirhier directories will be 0777 (rwxrwxrwx) with this
>>>> patch, as
>>>> will all of the contents of sstate-cache (siginfo and tgz) files.
>>>>
>>>> This is actually what one would expect from reading the Python API docs
>>>> for
>>>> os.makedirs "The default mode is 0777 (octal)."[1] but not what actually
>>>> happens
>>>> on most modern Linux systems thanks to umask.
>>>>
>>>> Please review the following changes for suitability for inclusion. If you
>>>> have
>>>> any objections or suggestions for improvement, please respond to the
>>>> patches. If
>>>> you agree with the changes, please provide your Acked-by.
>>>
>>>
>>> 777 seems questionable to me, personally. Generally collaboration
>>> happens amongst folks within a group, and chmod g+s makes that easier.
>>> I'd expect 775 to be a more sane value, myself.
>>
>>
>> Do you mean for bb.mkdirhier calls, the tgz files, the siginfo files or
>> everything?
>>
>> I went with 777 for mkdirhier as that's the default of os.makedirs before
>> umask is involved. I would likely have picked rw-rw-r-- (664) if I weren't
>> trying to request comments.
>
> Gotcha.
>
> I'm concerned about the behavior change and potential implications of
> changing the default behavior of mkdirhier. I'm inclined to say that
> when you don't pass mode, let it use the current behavior of obeying
> the umask.

An earlier version of the series did this and I'm happy to add that 
behaviour back in.

  If we're not going to do that, and want to change the
> default behavior, then I think 777 is the wrong/questionable default.
> Beyond that, 777 is certainly the wrong mode to be using for the
> shared state package in sstate.bbclass.

Do you have a strong preference on 664 vs. 775 ?

Thanks for the comments and feedback,

Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
         Yocto Project
         Intel Open Source Technology Centre