Gábor Boskovits writes: > Hello, > > Christopher Lemmer Webber <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: > 2020. szept. 9., Sze, 21:00): >> >> Maxim Cournoyer writes: >> >> > Hello Gabor! >> > >> > Gábor Boskovits <[email protected]> writes: >> > >> >> Hello guix, >> >> >> >> I would like to propose an extension to how setuid programs are >> >> currently handled. The last time I checked it could only do setuid and >> >> setgid root. Some services, such as postfix need a more fine grained >> >> setuid setup. I would propose a record type, such as: >> >> (setuid >> >> (program setuid-program) >> >> (setuid setuid-setuid) >> >> (setgid setuid-setgid) >> >> (user setuid-user) >> >> (group setuid-group)) >> >> >> >> So that there is more fine grained control. >> >> >> >> I would also propose to move this to the services framework, so that >> >> services could extend this field on demand. >> >> >> >> Wdyt? >> > >> > This sounds great! I also encountered such limitation and tried to >> > fixing it in https://issues.guix.info/41763, with some success (and an >> > unresolved limitation pointed by Chriistopher) but I agree that using a >> > record makes more sense and is more future proof. >> > >> > Maxim >> >> I'm eager to use Postfix on Guix (maybe it's me, but I just can't make >> sense of the weird DSL that opensmtpd uses) so I guess if that's what's >> necessary it already makes it a good idea. >> >> However I don't fully understand the syntax of what you proposed. Let's >> see if I can guess with a fake entry >> >> #~(setuid >> ;; The program to run, from the shady package >> (program (string-append #$shady "/bin/scaryfoo") >> ;; Would this be a boolean? If so should it be `setuid?` > yes, this should be a bool, studi? looks good to me. >> (setuid setuid-setuid) >> ;; Likewise? >> (setgid setuid-setgid) > yes, the same thing applies here. >> ;; Presumably the use we want to set this to >> (user setuid-user) > yes, this should just be the uid of the owner >> ;; Presumably the group we want to se this to > this should be the gid. >> (group setuid-group)) >> >> ... right? >> >> I guess this could be done in a backwards compatible way; >> %setuid-programs could either evaluate to strings or records, so the >> "simpler" version can remain an option? > Yes, it can be done this way. Actually I had a bit more general > solution in mind, > I feel there should be service to install a file from a store to a > given place, and with all the access control available, > like acl-s, if supported. And then provide the whole setuid thing as a > backwards compatibility layer, somehow like you described. > For now I guess creating this record type and implementing the > extended setuid functionality would be a good first step.
A service seems like a really good idea to me in that it feels the most composable with how Guix currently approaches things.
