On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 17:54:41 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > >> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of rules: > >> that's what Unix permissions (and Linux's capabilities) are for. > >> It's OK to add a warning and prompt the user to make sure he really > >> means to do that, but there's no point *preventing* the user from > >> shooting his own foot with this tool if he can do it with other > >> tools anyway. > > > Users here get no opportunity to shoot themselves or anyone else in the > > foot. Access to raw disks is over my dead body. > > So your users don't have access rights to the raw disks? > Great! then (g)parted doesn't need to check anything since the kernel > will do that already. > > > So I do not understand your point. > > The fact that it checks if the user is UID 0 is either useless (because > the user doesn't have write access to the device anyway, as should > usually be the case for the real physical devices connected to the > machine) or annoying (because it doesn't give any extra security since > the user can shoot himself in the foot with any number of other tools > anyway). > > It costs extra code with at best no benefit.
A well-made couple of points. But a user being able to shoot himself in his own foot with other tools as a way of bolstering the argument doesn't bear close scrutiny nowadays. Perhaps a reason for updating the bug record to clarify what the issue is? -- Brian.