On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> We've had a report[1] that depmod -a with a non-default umask (0027 in >>> this case) can leave the produced modules.* files with permissions other >>> than 0644. Now, this isn't really a bug because depmod is already >>> explicit with its permissions and open/openat honor umask. It can, >>> however, leave a machine in a state where non-root users can't read those >>> files. >>> >>> I'm curious if people think depmod should set its own explicit umask to >>> ensure the file permissions are set to 0644. If so, I could create a >>> patch to do this rather quickly. I wanted to get the upstream opinion on >>> this situation first though. >> >> Any thoughts at all? > > Sorry for the delay. > > I think it's weird to set the umask so files are not created with read > permission for users and then complain that depmod did exactly that. Yeah, I do as well. > How do I know if he indeed want to allow the user to run modinfo and > other tools that doesn't require privilege? After all if we reset the > umask I don't want to receive bug reports by users complaining they > told not to create file that way and that we are not honoring that. Yes, that makes sense. > That said, I never saw such a setup but if it's common to do this we > could think about resetting the umask. Does any distro ship with that > umask by default? Not that I'm aware of. I was only asking to see if anyone else thought it was a good idea, but it seems not. I'll tell the bug reporter that he should manually change the umask himself. Thanks for the reply. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-modules" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
