On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:52:07 +0200 Arvin Schnell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:23:36PM +0200, Josef Reidinger wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 14:17:40 +0200 > > Arvin Schnell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:11:48PM +0200, Lukas Ocilka wrote: > > > > On 7.7.2014 14:07, Josef Reidinger wrote: > > > > > > >> I have general question and I think answer to it should be > > > >> somewhere written as documented decision. > > > >> > > > >> Why we use absolute path to binary? I think proper set PATH in > > > >> environment should be goal and use common path. Also from > > > >> security point of view it is quite useless because if PATH is > > > >> attacked, then also any real root action is attacked. > > > > > > > Sure, I myself also prefer the shorter way, but I think it was > > > > because of security. Let's ask our security expert if this is > > > > really the case, or whether it has changed meanwhile. > > > > > > Bug https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794084 mentions > > > some reasons. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Arvin > > > > > > > I see some reasons, but I worry that we need to proper fix PATH > > But how, esp. if we want to make parts of YaST available as > libraries (modules/gems)? > > From my point of a library should work with any PATH variable. > > Regards, > Arvin > On other hand absolute path can make troubles to use library/gem on non-suse systems or even on older suse systems, which is wrong from my POV. I think it is reasonable requirement for library or gem, that it need working path to its work. So I think resolution can be use PATH for common binaries and for specific binaries use absolute path. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
