From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9323ECCD184 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2025 00:01:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.235]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.6526.1760745676123526765 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:01:16 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17Q1 header.b=X5QIXjnt; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.23.235, mailfrom: rs@ti.com) Received: from lelvem-sh01.itg.ti.com ([10.180.77.71]) by lelvem-ot02.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 59I01CpB2480160; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1760745672; bh=BZj0ri1y5O50oqjWqW0/3X92IwLkAADaCUsYUdq2IwY=; h=Date:CC:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=X5QIXjnt7F9tck0cKM6DoUC9IewI4lui6Ee7B03Yhwh8QL2XytK7kMRjMDOXiStge 3vATRPScAagZUghgxWytUEb8pL3yMQxKHUgt/QJNtmn1JLcnL5moQFF+FkUDqacOGN YM7sRoTqDDn/PdobOtzRz6AgjCew3JpUoth/WHxI= Received: from DLEE211.ent.ti.com (dlee211.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.113]) by lelvem-sh01.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPS id 59I01Cgd2760672 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:12 -0500 Received: from DLEE205.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.85) by DLEE211.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.20; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:11 -0500 Received: from lelvem-mr05.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.9) by DLEE205.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.20 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (rs-desk.dhcp.ti.com [128.247.81.144]) by lelvem-mr05.itg.ti.com (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 59I01BdF2066611; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:01:11 -0500 Message-ID: CC: "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [oe-core][PATCH] sysvinit: create tmpfile dir for x11 domain socket From: Randolph Sapp To: , Ross Burton X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2 References: <20251007234809.435300-2-rs@ti.com> <186EB9ECC2726DB8.13861@lists.openembedded.org> In-Reply-To: <186EB9ECC2726DB8.13861@lists.openembedded.org> X-C2ProcessedOrg: 333ef613-75bf-4e12-a4b1-8e3623f5dcea List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2025 00:01:25 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/225070 On Wed Oct 15, 2025 at 12:22 PM CDT, Randolph Sapp via lists.openembedded.o= rg wrote: > On Wed Oct 15, 2025 at 9:37 AM CDT, Ross Burton wrote: >> On 8 Oct 2025, at 00:48, rs@ti.com wrote: >>>=20 >>> From: Randolph Sapp >>>=20 >>> Register a volatile directory entry for the x11 domain socket when not >>> using systemd. This will make sure the directory is always created with >>> the correct permissions. Systemd already provides their own tmpfile.d >>> entry for the same behavior. >> >> We discussed this in the patch review call on Monday and concluded that = it >> definitely felt like it should be in the xserver recipe. > > Sure. > I am a little bummed that we don't want to have symmetry between init syste= m packages though. Gonna need a gross "VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager" check to make sure we don't clash with tmpfiles.d entry. >>> Currently some x11 related applications will create this directory if i= t >>> doesn't already exist, but this is not true for everything. In addition= , >>> if the application in question isn't started as root, it's possible thi= s >>> directory can be owned by a non-root user. This isn't an issue by >>> itself, but it can potentially lead to problems in a multi-user >>> environment. >> >> Can you clarify what applications will create this directory and which w= ill >> not? Surely it=E2=80=99s the responsibility for the xserver to create th= e sockets? >> >> Ross > > Forgive me, as it's been quite some time since I initially tested this. I > believe during testing with the current default xsession managers will cr= eate it > but xwayland sessions will not. Given that systemd has determined they ne= ed to > ship this as a global tmpfiles.d entry I assume there is more nuance to t= his > than what I have outlined. > > - Randolph Ah, now I remember, all rootless X sessions also have the capability of generating this socket directory with the wrong owner, given that the serve= r may try to make the directory after it's already dropped to user permissions. I= t's normally fine because they throw 777 at it. Not great, but whatever. - Randolph