Frans Pop wrote: > As I was extremely tired last night I decided to quit the discussion until > after some sleep. > > On Monday 17 December 2007, Joey Hess wrote: > > Frans Pop wrote: > > > Because a dpkg-reconfigure needs to ask the question even if a keymap > > > is installed. > > > > if [ ! -e /etc/whatever_file ] || [ "$1" = reconfigure ]; then > > # ask question > > fi > > Having d-i write an /etc/whatever_file for this still seems very ugly to me.
Um, that's intended to be a standin for whatever is the name of the keymap
file that d-i configures instead of console-* configuring.
> Does not change the fact that the probability of anyone abusing that "hole"
> is about 0 and the effects if they do so is about null. On a scale from 1
> to 100 I would personally rate this security issue at about -0.
The number of times that people have used this reasoning and then gone
on to have their security not-a-hole used in combination with some other
security not-a-hole to exploit a system is somewhat larger than zero. My
feeling is that the security community in general agrees with me -- I
suspect we'd have no difficulty in getting a CVE number assigned for
this security hole, aside perhaps from it not yet having been shipped in
any released software.
> That said, I totally agree that this is not something that should be
> implemented as a general mechanism and after some reflection I've come to
> the conclusion that your suggestion to set the "seen" flag is probably the
> best solution.
Why is it better than simply testing for the keymap file's existance?
> It would have been ever so nice if this discussion could have been taken
> place _before_ the other solution had been implemented.
> Lessons for the future:
> - if someone proposes a patch with an RFC and some reservations, please
> don't just upload the patch but allow some time for feedback
> - if someone posts an RFC it would be nice if more people took the trouble
> to read it, consider the issue and post their opinion; preferable with
> arguments (even if they agree) and alternatives (if they don't)
I read the RFC immediatly after reading the commit message. It's
holidays and I don't have a lot of time. I also prefer to have as little
to do with console-* as possible..
> +# Avoid displaying console-data's keymap policy question
> +cd_template=console-data/keymap/policy
> +cd_policy="Don't touch keymap"
> +if ! db_set $cd_template "$cd_policy"; then
> + db_register debian-installer/dummy $cd_template
> + db_set $cd_template "$cd_policy"
> + db_subst $cd_template ID $cd_template
> +fi
> +db_fset $cd_template seen true
> +debconf-copydb -p $cd_template configdb target_configdb
I'm not sure what the resulting console-data/keymap/policy entry looks
like in /var/cache/debconf/config.db. Does it have a sane template, or
does copydb make it have debian-installer/dummy as the template? That
would break later reconfiguration. Does it have the right owner?
preseed's own base-installer script uses debconf-set-selections.
echo "console-data console-data/keymap/policy seen true" | \
chroot /target debconf-set-selections
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
