[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16061825#comment-16061825
]
Pierrick HYMBERT commented on LOG4J2-1699:
------------------------------------------
I think the goal is reached with this first version, then we should wait users
feedback if it matches requirements.
Also before to freeze this new API, I would like to have feedback from the
log4j team about following point:
# Is XML Configuration tag should be shortenen, filePermissions=>perm,
fileOwner=>usr, fileGroup=>grp, PosixViewAttribute=>PosixAttr ?
# It is not clear what to do if posix attribute view are defined and the
underlying files system does not support it ?
# Should we catch UnsupportedOperationException and OperationNotPermitted
exception ?
# In
org.apache.logging.log4j.core.appender.rolling.DirectWriteRolloverStrategy.rollover(RollingFileManager),
I apply again file attribute, I think it is wrong because file is the same as
the current file name, please confirm
# Should we imagine now an entry point for other FileAttributeView types:
AclFileAttributeView, DosFileAttributeView ?
> Configurable Log File Permissions with PosixFilePermission
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1699
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1699
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: Appenders
> Environment: Linux
> Reporter: Demetrios Dimatos
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: features
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LOG4J2-1699-2.patch, LOG4J2-1699.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 336h
> Remaining Estimate: 336h
>
> We would like to hear the communities thoughts on being able to configure the
> permissions log files are created with. We don't want to rely on UMASK
> because we have managed services who's process should generate logs with a
> 644 yet deployed applications by users should default to a 640 because the
> logs may contain sensitive information.
> We will make the modification and set this in the properties file. Now we are
> looking to see what the community position would be on accepting such a
> patch, we don't want to be patching our own distribution indefinitely.
> I searched all the JIRAs and was not able to find any matching requirements
> recently. All I could find was something dated in 2006:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40407
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
