On 09/05/12 17:50, Chris Larson wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Joshua Lock<[email protected]>  wrote:
In Yocto #2041[2]  Mark reported an issue with reusing shared state as a
different user on the same machine.

Since the whole purpose of shared state is that it be shared I decided to dig
into this issue. I wanted to at least be able to use the shared-state cache of
a different user without error, even if all of the objects aren't actually used
(i.e. native, at least on the Edison branch I did most of the testing with).

This is an RFC mainly because it changes the permissions of created directories,
sstate files and siginfo files from what they have traditionally been.

There is more of the rhyme an reason in the patch commit headers and comments
but tl;dr bb.mkdirhier directories will be 0777 (rwxrwxrwx) with this patch, as
will all of the contents of sstate-cache (siginfo and tgz) files.

This is actually what one would expect from reading the Python API docs for
os.makedirs "The default mode is 0777 (octal)."[1] but not what actually happens
on most modern Linux systems thanks to umask.

Please review the following changes for suitability for inclusion. If you have
any objections or suggestions for improvement, please respond to the patches. If
you agree with the changes, please provide your Acked-by.

777 seems questionable to me, personally. Generally collaboration
happens amongst folks within a group, and chmod g+s makes that easier.
I'd expect 775 to be a more sane value, myself.

Do you mean for bb.mkdirhier calls, the tgz files, the siginfo files or everything?

I went with 777 for mkdirhier as that's the default of os.makedirs before umask is involved. I would likely have picked rw-rw-r-- (664) if I weren't trying to request comments.

Cheers,
Joshua
--
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to