Re: Portable service and bind paths

[Lennart Poettering <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mo, 06.01.20 20:44, Claes H (claesatwork@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:40 PM Lennart Poettering
> <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If possible use DynamicUser=1, i.e. have a short-lived user that only
> > exists while your service is running.
> >
> > For some usecases that doesn#t work though. There's a TODO list item,
> > to add AllocateUser= as new switch to create a user persistently on
> > first start, as an alternative for such cases. Nobody worked on that
> > yet though. And of course, it's much less sexy since for such users
> > the portable services would suddenly leave traces on the system, in a
> > way that is never cleaned up...
> >
>
> I will see if I can get DynamicUser to work.  If I understand that
> correctly, it is mainly useful when the service is truly self
> contained / having its own sandbox.

Yes. If the service is supposed to for example write files visible to
other services that DynamicUser=1 doesn't work really.

> I want the service and myself to be able to read and write to the
> files in its configuration / runtime directory. That is why I have
> Bind-mounted it into the service's file system. Need to read up on the
> state directory concept for DynamicUser. But it seems complex.
>
> The AllocateUser concept seems very useful for when the usecase is to
> bundle up a fast moving application with all its dependencies. I would
> not mind so much about the traces that can be left. If it is
> implemented, probably should include something like AllocateGroup
> too.

Would be delighted to review a patch for that ;-)

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel