On Mon, 2018-08-06 at 14:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi John, > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 10:09:53PM +0100, John Lenton wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 21:16, Steve Langasek <steve.langasek@ubuntu. > > com> wrote: > > > I think it's exceedingly unlikely that anyone is going to unpack, > > > and > > > subsequently boot, an Ubuntu root tarball on a filesystem that > > > doesn't > > > support xattrs. All the filesystems that Ubuntu supports out of > > > the box as > > > rootfs (in terms of installers, and filesystem tools > > > preinstalled) support > > > xattrs. > > while this is strictly true, 'snap pack' and 'snapcraft pack' > > currently disable xattrs, and the store will not approve snaps that > > are built with xattrs. > > Thanks, that's a useful data point. Do you think it is a practical > concern > for snaps if an Ubuntu rootfs uses fscaps? Is this an argument > against > allowing fscaps in Ubuntu, or should it just be a matter for > snapcraft to > warn/error about on creation, guiding users to using setuid instead? > > As a worked example: the core snap does ship /bin/ping, which is > currently > setuid-root in Ubuntu but would move to fscaps in this > proposal. (The core > snap does not include mtr-tiny.) What do you believe is the correct > outcome > here for /bin/ping in a future ubuntu core 20 snap?
App snaps are currently expected to be generated with --no-xattrs and I continue to believe this is the correct choice for the time being. os/base snaps need not be expected to be built this way and we while might have some light review tools updates for this, in principle it is not a problem for os/base snaps. -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
