On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:51 PM Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 1/19/20 8:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > It would be far simpler for the sysadmin to simply ensure that no
> > unsynced user owns a file or appears in an ACL.  That would be pretty
> > trivial to achieve.  Whatever is hosting /home could be designed to
> > block such changes, or you could just scan for these ownership issues
> > periodically and treat those responsible for them appropriately.
> Fantasy scenarios again. I'm not going to debunk a system that you just
> thought up and that has never existed. Why don't you find one person who
> actually does this, and see if it bothers him if we create a home
> directory under /home where it belongs?

Uh, I'm pretty confident that nothing in my /home is owned by a UID
under 1000, or has an ACL referencing such a UID.  I just checked with
myself and I don't want you creating directories in /home.

This really seems like it has the potential to create a mess for
anybody using LUKS-encrypted home directories, stuff mounted from
CIFS, and so on.  While I personally don't do either it seems fairly
mainstream, and I could eventually see myself using it more once
better supported on Gentoo (such as when systemd-homed is more

> > On the topic of treating those responsible appropriately, somehow I
> > could see this scenario turning into a quiz question.
> >
> > I mean, would it kill you to just talk to QA first?
> I've already got responses from two QA members. This thread is pretty
> hard to miss.

Well, then why go posting stuff like "guess we'll be triggering a
warning after all?"

> I'm working on a patch for the install-qa-check.d check
> and I'm sure I'll get more when I post it.

Are you just allowing it to not create the directory, or are we
considering patching it to allow creating stuff under /home?  It would
seem that the policy would also need updating in that case, but
probably not the former.


Reply via email to