[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16065233#comment-16065233
 ] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on LOG4J2-1699:
---------------------------------------------------------

Commit a5a95886b6912b31009a7c61f18396280e083cd6 in logging-log4j2's branch 
refs/heads/master from [~phymbert]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=logging-log4j2.git;h=a5a9588 ]

[LOG4J2-1699] Log File Permissions with PosixFilePermission feedback
from jira. Closes #89. 
- item 2: Better log at configuration step if file attribute view are
defined but underlying files system doesnt support it
- item 3: Exception catch and logged if OperationNotSupported or
Operation not permitted are thrown while changing file attribute
permissions, user or group
- item 4: No need to apply file posix attribute if file is just rolled
not compressed, both in DirectWriteRolloverStrategy and
DefaultRolloverStrategy.
- Changed next release version in documentation and javadoc.

> 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)

Reply via email to