On 09/05/12 19:15, Chris Larson wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Joshua Lock<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Gotcha.
I'm concerned about the behavior change and potential implications of
changing the default behavior of mkdirhier. I'm inclined to say that
when you don't pass mode, let it use the current behavior of obeying
the umask.
An earlier version of the series did this and I'm happy to add that
behaviour back in.
If we're not going to do that, and want to change the
default behavior, then I think 777 is the wrong/questionable default.
Beyond that, 777 is certainly the wrong mode to be using for the
shared state package in sstate.bbclass.
Do you have a strong preference on 664 vs. 775 ?
Thanks for the comments and feedback,
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
