Gábor Boskovits writes:
> Hello, > > Christopher Lemmer Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> ezt írta (időpont: > 2020. szept. 10., Cs, 0:52): >> >> Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: >> >> > Gábor Boskovits writes: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Christopher Lemmer Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> ezt írta (időpont: >> >> 2020. szept. 9., Sze, 21:00): >> >>> >> >>> Maxim Cournoyer writes: >> >>> >> >>> > Hello Gabor! >> >>> > >> >>> > Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> 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. >> >> I feel like this one needs more "Guix maintainer" overview. > I agree, this would be nice. > > The current >> setuid-programs could be kept as legacy behavior that installs an >> additional service. Thoughts? > > I believe it should be kept and install an additional service. > > I have two reasons for that: backwards compatibility is really > important, so we should not break it, and I believe this would not be > hard to do. > On the other hand it would be nice to have a more integrated backend, > and move as many things into the services infrastructure as practical, > and I think this is a good candidate for that. Wdyt? > > Best regards, > g_bor That's fine by me. I don't feel like I'm the right one to make the call though!