On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:08:19PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> In our system build scripts we have this command:
> >>>
> >>> /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
> >>> "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
> >>>
> >>> After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead
> >>> of UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has
> >>> this test:
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * Check the given uid, if any
> >>> */
> >>> if (id > 0) {
> >>> uid = (uid_t) id;
> >>>
> >>> if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
> >>> errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
> >>> allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
> >>> } else {
> >>> struct bitmap bm;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be
> >>> passed on the command line.
> >>>
> >>> This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
> >>> intentional?
> >>
> >> Nope, I'll fix asap
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bapt
> >
> > Fixed in head, will be merged soon in stable, I also added a regression test
> > about this.
> >
> > Please note that you do add -g 0 and -g wheel in your command line, this is
> > buggy, only one should be specified.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > bapt
>
> The next problem is that the meaning of the -o option seems to have been
> reversed. Setting -o sets conf.checkduplicate to true, which is then tested
> in the code fragment above. Setting -o is meant to prevent duplicate
> checking, not turn it on.
>
> My guess is that this isn’t intentional either.
>
> Also: The policy for auto-allocating group identifiers seems to have changed.
> For UIDs < 1000 the old pw allocated a GID the same as the UID. This pw
> allocates the next available above 1000. I can see an argument for both cases
> and I’ve changed our build scripts to deal with this but I’m curious: Was
> this intentional also?
> Both has been fixed head already I do plan to merge them later today so they will be in BETA2 Best regards, Bapt
pgp6XSYUz1o2z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
