On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Eric Blake <[email protected]> wrote: > I just created a local user named "0" (don't ask), and noticed that > although we can do things like "chown +0:+0 file" to FORCE a file to be > owned by uid 0 (rather than the uid of my unfortunate "0" username), > it's a bit harder to learn details about a uid hidden by a poor username. > > $ id 0 > uid=14987(0) gid=14987(0) groups=14987(0) > $ id +0 > id: +0: no such user > > Of course, everyone "knows" that uid 0 is named "root", but this > question applies to any other unfortunate uid/name collision. > Therefore, I propose that we support 'id +0' as the way to say 'give me > the details about uid 0, no matter if username 0 also happens to exist'.
Makes sense, and like the chown "feature", it should be safe.
