On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:06 PM, tito <farmat...@tiscali.it> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 August 2014 15:21:49 you wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:06 PM, tito <farmat...@tiscali.it> wrote: > > > > > >> On Tuesday 05 August 2014 14:47:53 you wrote: > > >> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:42 PM, tito <farmat...@tiscali.it> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Tuesday 05 August 2014 14:27:57 you wrote: > > >> > > > I disagree. There is nothing to reject here. It fixes _my > issue_ at > > >> hand. > > >> > > > If you want to fix other bugs in your system that you are > facing in > > >> > > > reality, by all means, fix them in a separate change. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I definitely do not agree with dynamically allocated buffer for > the > > >> > > simple > > >> > > > reasons of: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1) Slow. > > >> > > > 2) You would still need a maximum anyway. > > >> > > > 3) Needless code complication. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Let us keep things simple and good, you know the good old KISS > > >> principle. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > P.S.: please do not bikeshed. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:17 PM, tito <farmat...@tiscali.it> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tuesday 05 August 2014 12:46:08 you wrote: > > >> > > > > > Here is my tested fix without being to debug the busybox > code, > > >> so > > >> > > only > > >> > > > > code > > >> > > > > > reading and understanding were my friends: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > commit 9610650b6ce2a4c1904f78a2dcdb47cad3d2e3d1 > > >> > > > > > Author: Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> > > >> > > > > > Date: Tue Aug 5 11:42:24 2014 +0100 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Allow 256 bytes long usernames as per Unix standards > > >> (usually) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > diff --git a/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c b/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c > > >> > > > > > index 2060d78..368c252 100644 > > >> > > > > > --- a/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c > > >> > > > > > +++ b/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c > > >> > > > > > @@ -23,8 +23,8 @@ > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > /**********************************************************************/ > > >> > > > > > /* Sizes for statically allocated buffers. */ > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -#define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 256 > > >> > > > > > -#define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 256 > > >> > > > > > +#define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 > > >> > > > > > +#define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > /**********************************************************************/ > > >> > > > > > /* Prototypes for internal functions. */ > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > yes I've thought also about this solution but rejected it > because: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1) there will not be enough space to hold the home dir if > named > > >> the > > >> > > same > > >> > > > > as the user > > >> > > > > so you need at least: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+ 6 (for home) + > > >> LOGIN_NAME_MAX > > >> > > (or > > >> > > > > PATH_MAX?) + 256 (for the rest) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > yet this might not be enough as in my passwd file I see a > 101 > > >> char > > >> > > long > > >> > > > > passwd. > > >> > > > > Add the gecos fields (arbitrary lenght) to it and the > default > > >> > > shell > > >> > > > > and we are short on space again. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2) same for #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256: > > >> > > > > here you need to take into account the group member list > with > > >> > > > > an arbitrary number of members: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256+ > LOGIN_NAME_MAX*n: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The only clean solution to fix it forever is dynamically > allocated > > >> > > buffers > > >> > > > > created at the time you read in the line from the passwd > files. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Ciao, > > >> > > > > Tito > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > P.S.: please don't top post. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, mayhaps... Thanks for the prompt reply. I tried to > > >> debug the > > >> > > > > code, > > >> > > > > > > but the busybox code here is a bit messy heavily abusing > > >> macros in > > >> > > C > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > all that. It ain't easy I must confess! > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For instance, see this section: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c#n227 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The _source_ is included several times always getting a > new > > >> meaning > > >> > > > > based > > >> > > > > > > on some defines... Now, check this function: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/libpwdgrp/pwd_grp_internal.c#n20 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "resultbuf" will be always different depending on which > > >> include it > > >> > > is. > > >> > > > > > > Since it is failing at the pw_name check in there, I > wanted to > > >> > > print it > > >> > > > > > > out, but no easy joy there as printing it like that will > yield > > >> > > > > compilation > > >> > > > > > > error when the file is being included next time from > above. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Right, I thought instead of doing some "#if a == b" > hackery, > > >> > > debugging > > >> > > > > > > would be easier, BUT: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1) The default build is stripped, yuck! > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) The unstripped build cannot locate the symbols (*). > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So, I am giving up on this for now; this is not the type > of > > >> source > > >> > > code > > >> > > > > > > that is so pleasant to work with. ;-) > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers, L. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > * (gdb) b main > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Breakpoint 2 at 0x407c71 > > >> > > > > > > (gdb) r > > >> > > > > > > Starting program: > > >> /home/lpapp/Projects/busybox/busybox_unstripped > > >> > > > > deluser > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > > warning: Could not load shared library symbols for > > >> linux-vdso.so.1. > > >> > > > > > > Do you need "set solib-search-path" or "set sysroot"? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Breakpoint 2, 0x0000000000407c71 in main () > > >> > > > > > > (gdb) list > > >> > > > > > > No symbol table is loaded. Use the "file" command. > > >> > > > > > > (gdb) > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:40 PM, tito < > farmat...@tiscali.it> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Monday 04 August 2014 19:06:39 Laszlo Papp wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > sudo busybox adduser > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> > passwd: unknown user > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Yet, the user is created in /etc/shadow: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff:!:16286:0:99999:7::: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > This is at least one issue, but there is another here: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > sudo busybox deluser > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> > deluser: unknown user > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > So, basically, once you create that long username, you > > >> cannot > > >> > > > > remove it > > >> > > > > > >> > anymore with busybox and it keeps polluting your > system. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > You have to gain other means to clean up! I am using > this > > >> > > version > > >> > > > > over > > >> > > > > > >> here: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > BusyBox v1.22.1 (2014-06-02 14:47:37 MSK) multi-call > > >> binary. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Could you please look into this and potentially fix it? > > >> Thanks > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > > >> advance. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Cheers, L. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > > > > >> if disabling libb's internal pwd/grp lib and by jumping > > >> through > > >> > > some > > >> > > > > hops > > >> > > > > > >> it > > >> > > > > > >> works for me: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> I need to add the group first as my system's groupadd > command > > >> > > called > > >> > > > > by > > >> > > > > > >> bb's adduser > > >> > > > > > >> supports only groupnames of max 32 chars. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox addgroup > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox adduser > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> -G > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> Adding user > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > `fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff' > > >> > > > > > >> to group > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > `fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff' > > >> > > > > > >> ... > > >> > > > > > >> Adding user > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> to group > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> Done. > > >> > > > > > >> Enter new UNIX password: > > >> > > > > > >> Retype new UNIX password: > > >> > > > > > >> passwd: password updated successfully > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> and then I could also delete it: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox deluser > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> ./busybox delgroup > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> delgroup: unknown group > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> (deluser correctly deleted also the group) > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> I suspect that the buffer size used in > libbpwdgrp/pwd_grp.c > > >> is to > > >> > > > > small: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 256 > > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 256 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> as it is meant for the whole struct pw passwd (or struct > gr > > >> group) > > >> > > > > fields > > >> > > > > > >> which could be easily be bigger: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> grep ffff* /etc/shadow | wc > > >> > > > > > >> 1 1 240 > > >> > > > > > >> grep ffff* /etc/passwd | wc > > >> > > > > > >> 1 2 286 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> I think that the buffers' size must be increased for > example > > >> to: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE LOGIN_NAME_MAX+LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> we need one LOGIN_NAME_MAX size for the login and one > more > > >> for the > > >> > > > > home > > >> > > > > > >> dir > > >> > > > > > >> if same as login, plus 256 for the remaining data > (passwd, > > >> gecos, > > >> > > > > shell, > > >> > > > > > >> etc). > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE > LOGIN_NAME_MAX+256+LOGIN_NAME_MAX*n > > >> (?) > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> we need one LOGIN_NAME_MAX size for the group name (for > > >> which we > > >> > > > > > >> actually enforce the same size as for the username) plus > 256 > > >> for > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > >> remaining data > > >> > > > > > >> plus LOGIN_NAME_MAX * n group member names. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> So for my limited understanding using static buffers > here is > > >> > > rather > > >> > > > > > >> difficult > > >> > > > > > >> as the size of data is not easily predictable. > > >> > > > > > >> I don't know how real libc manages it (maybe realloc on > > >> ERANGE?) > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Your particular example for me is fixed by using. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> #define PWD_BUFFER_SIZE 1024 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> #define GRP_BUFFER_SIZE 1024 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> But to me it seems not an optimal solution, > > >> > > > > > >> so other more experienced developers should > > >> > > > > > >> take a look at it. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Hope this helps. > > >> > > > > > >> Ciao, > > >> > > > > > >> Tito > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> PS: in libbbpwdgrp functions we need to check for errors: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> 0 or ENOENT or ESRCH or EBADF or EPERM or ... > > >> > > > > > >> The given name or gid was not found. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> EINTR A signal was caught. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> EIO I/O error. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> EMFILE The maximum number (OPEN_MAX) of files was > open > > >> > > already > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > >> the calling process. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> ENFILE The maximum number of files was open > already > > >> in the > > >> > > > > system. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> ENOMEM Insufficient memory to allocate group > > >> structure. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> ERANGE Insufficient buffer space supplied. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> as for example the xgroup_study function in the addgroup > > >> applet > > >> > > > > > >> assigns a wrong gid if getgrgid fails for example for > ERANGE > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> /* Check if the desired gid is free > > >> > > > > > >> * or find the first free one */ > > >> > > > > > >> while (1) { > > >> > > > > > >> printf("gid %d\n", g->gr_gid); > > >> > > > > > >> if (!getgrgid(g->gr_gid)) { > > >> > > > > > >> return; /* found free group: > return > > >> */ > > >> > > > > > >> } > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > Hi, > > >> > > I doubt it fixes your issue > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > What you are basically telling me here that I submitted untested > changes > > >> > for my use cases, directly or indirectly. Either way, I refuse this > > >> claim > > >> > since I _did_ test the change for my use case. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > because I tested the same fix and it did in fact > > >> > > > >> > fail. Please test: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1) ./busybox addgroup LONGUSERNAME (this fails in subtle ways > as a > > >> > > already in use gid is assigned) > > >> > > 2) ./busybox adduser LONGUSERNAME -G LONGUSERNAME > > >> > > 3) ./busybox deluser LONGUSERNAME > > >> > > 4) ./busybox delgroup LONGUSERNAME > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I do not see how this is any relevant to my initial steps. This is a > > >> > completely different test step with a different issue. As I said > > >> earlier, > > >> > please welcome contributors rather than being blocker just because > they > > >> fix > > >> > one particular and real bug, and not every "imaginary" use case > that can > > >> > just exist in the world out there. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> there is nothing imaginary here, i just would like to point out that > > >> due to the fact that busybox adduser program by default creates > > >> a home dir with the same name as the user the buffer size you > > >> propose in your fix may not be big enough to hold all the data > > >> and that this fact will affect also other commands that use > > >> the functions in libbbpwdgrp in subtle ways. > > >> I of course welcome you as a contributor and by the way I have > > >> no decisional power to accept or reject your patches (which is fine > > >> for me), but nonetheless sometimes I disagree with you for the sake > > >> of cleaner solutions (from my point of view). > > >> > > > > > > This script disagrees with you: > > > > > > #!/bin/bash > > > > > > USERNAME='e' > > > for i in {1..232} > > > do > > > USERNAME+='f' > > > done > > > echo $USERNAME > > > > > > ./busybox adduser -D $USERNAME > > > ./busybox deluser $USERNAME > > > > > > > Furthermore, I am planning to use -H for now, so I am not in any way > > affected by this (other than -H is broken here for some reason because it > > does create the home folder in /etc/passwd, but that is discussion for > > another thread). > Hi, > > --no-create-home > Do not create the home directory, even if it doesn't exist. > > #adduser prova --no-create-home > Adding user `prova' ... > Adding new group `prova' (1005) ... > Adding new user `prova' (1004) with group `prova' ... > Not creating home directory `/home/prova'. > Enter new UNIX password: > Retype new UNIX password: > passwd: password updated successfully > Changing the user information for prova > Enter the new value, or press ENTER for the default > Full Name []: > Room Number []: > Work Phone []: > Home Phone []: > Other []: > Is the information correct? [Y/n] y > # grep prova /etc/passwd > prova:x:1004:1005:,,,:/home/prova:/bin/bash > #ls -la /home | grep prova > > This is the expected behaviour. Real adduser on debian does the same. >
Please forget about Debian's adduser when discussing it. Different distributions have different wrappers, so it is not the main direction. In fact, debian even has custom policies in those wrappers. I was investigating about it, and it seems even -r (system user) is having that passwd entry, which I personally believe _strange_ at this point. I am yet to understand why it is done so. In my opinion, it is wrong, at least from certain point of view because: * If you do not intend to create a home directory at this point, but later manually, you will end up having the wrong entry in /etc/passwd. * Even if you never create a home directory, it might whisper that the home folder was removed manually by someone. At least, this is a potential confusion. I think at this point - based on my current information -, busybox could do better than the desktop tool here. It would not be the first reasonable separation from the desktop family (past hint: flexibility about usernames and passwords). Cheers, L.
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
