Re: 10.2-BETA1: pw(8) does not support "pw useradd name -u 0"
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:08:19PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> In our system build scripts we have this command:
> >>>
> >>> /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
> >>> "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
> >>>
> >>> After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead
> >>> of UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has
> >>> this test:
> >>>
> >>>/*
> >>> * Check the given uid, if any
> >>> */
> >>>if (id > 0) {
> >>>uid = (uid_t) id;
> >>>
> >>>if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
> >>>errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
> >>> allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
> >>>} else {
> >>>struct bitmap bm;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be
> >>> passed on the command line.
> >>>
> >>> This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
> >>> intentional?
> >>
> >> Nope, I'll fix asap
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bapt
> >
> > Fixed in head, will be merged soon in stable, I also added a regression test
> > about this.
> >
> > Please note that you do add -g 0 and -g wheel in your command line, this is
> > buggy, only one should be specified.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > bapt
>
> The next problem is that the meaning of the -o option seems to have been
> reversed. Setting -o sets conf.checkduplicate to true, which is then tested
> in the code fragment above. Setting -o is meant to prevent duplicate
> checking, not turn it on.
>
> My guess is that this isn’t intentional either.
>
> Also: The policy for auto-allocating group identifiers seems to have changed.
> For UIDs < 1000 the old pw allocated a GID the same as the UID. This pw
> allocates the next available above 1000. I can see an argument for both cases
> and I’ve changed our build scripts to deal with this but I’m curious: Was
> this intentional also?
>
> Regards,
>
All fixes has been merged:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=285536
Do not hesitate to report other regressions if you do find any more.
Thank you very much,
Bapt
pgpKAZHfAKRVC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 10.2-BETA1: pw(8) does not support "pw useradd name -u 0"
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:08:19PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> In our system build scripts we have this command:
> >>>
> >>> /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
> >>> "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
> >>>
> >>> After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead
> >>> of UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has
> >>> this test:
> >>>
> >>>/*
> >>> * Check the given uid, if any
> >>> */
> >>>if (id > 0) {
> >>>uid = (uid_t) id;
> >>>
> >>>if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
> >>>errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
> >>> allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
> >>>} else {
> >>>struct bitmap bm;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be
> >>> passed on the command line.
> >>>
> >>> This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
> >>> intentional?
> >>
> >> Nope, I'll fix asap
> >>
> >> Thanks for reporting
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Bapt
> >
> > Fixed in head, will be merged soon in stable, I also added a regression test
> > about this.
> >
> > Please note that you do add -g 0 and -g wheel in your command line, this is
> > buggy, only one should be specified.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > bapt
>
> The next problem is that the meaning of the -o option seems to have been
> reversed. Setting -o sets conf.checkduplicate to true, which is then tested
> in the code fragment above. Setting -o is meant to prevent duplicate
> checking, not turn it on.
>
> My guess is that this isn’t intentional either.
>
> Also: The policy for auto-allocating group identifiers seems to have changed.
> For UIDs < 1000 the old pw allocated a GID the same as the UID. This pw
> allocates the next available above 1000. I can see an argument for both cases
> and I’ve changed our build scripts to deal with this but I’m curious: Was
> this intentional also?
>
Both has been fixed head already I do plan to merge them later today so they
will be in BETA2
Best regards,
Bapt
pgp6XSYUz1o2z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 10.2-BETA1: pw(8) does not support "pw useradd name -u 0"
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 19:10, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In our system build scripts we have this command:
>>>
>>> /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
>>> "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
>>>
>>> After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead of
>>> UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has this
>>> test:
>>>
>>>/*
>>> * Check the given uid, if any
>>> */
>>>if (id > 0) {
>>>uid = (uid_t) id;
>>>
>>>if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
>>>errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
>>> allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
>>>} else {
>>>struct bitmap bm;
>>>
>>>
>>> The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be passed
>>> on the command line.
>>>
>>> This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
>>> intentional?
>>
>> Nope, I'll fix asap
>>
>> Thanks for reporting
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bapt
>
> Fixed in head, will be merged soon in stable, I also added a regression test
> about this.
>
> Please note that you do add -g 0 and -g wheel in your command line, this is
> buggy, only one should be specified.
>
> Best regards,
> bapt
The next problem is that the meaning of the -o option seems to have been
reversed. Setting -o sets conf.checkduplicate to true, which is then tested in
the code fragment above. Setting -o is meant to prevent duplicate checking, not
turn it on.
My guess is that this isn’t intentional either.
Also: The policy for auto-allocating group identifiers seems to have changed.
For UIDs < 1000 the old pw allocated a GID the same as the UID. This pw
allocates the next available above 1000. I can see an argument for both cases
and I’ve changed our build scripts to deal with this but I’m curious: Was this
intentional also?
Regards,
Jan.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: 10.2-BETA1: pw(8) does not support "pw useradd name -u 0"
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:36:28AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In our system build scripts we have this command:
> >
> > /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
> > "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
> >
> > After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead of
> > UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has this
> > test:
> >
> > /*
> > * Check the given uid, if any
> > */
> > if (id > 0) {
> > uid = (uid_t) id;
> >
> > if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
> > errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
> > allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
> > } else {
> > struct bitmap bm;
> >
> >
> > The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be passed
> > on the command line.
> >
> > This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
> > intentional?
>
> Nope, I'll fix asap
>
> Thanks for reporting
>
> Best regards,
> Bapt
Fixed in head, will be merged soon in stable, I also added a regression test
about this.
Please note that you do add -g 0 and -g wheel in your command line, this is
buggy, only one should be specified.
Best regards,
bapt
pgpXGvYnqU7zZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: 10.2-BETA1: pw(8) does not support "pw useradd name -u 0"
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:32PM +1000, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In our system build scripts we have this command:
>
> /usr/sbin/pw -V $d useradd toor -u 0 -g 0 -d /root -s /bin/sh -c
> "Bourne-again Superuser" -g wheel -o
>
> After 10.2-BETA1, the toor account is being added with UID 1001 instead of
> UID 0. This looks like a problem with line 754 in pw_user.c, which has this
> test:
>
> /*
> * Check the given uid, if any
> */
> if (id > 0) {
> uid = (uid_t) id;
>
> if ((pwd = GETPWUID(uid)) != NULL && conf.checkduplicate)
> errx(EX_DATAERR, "uid `%u' has already been
> allocated", pwd->pw_uid);
> } else {
> struct bitmap bm;
>
>
> The (id > 0) test should probably be (id >= 0) to allow “-u 0” to be passed
> on the command line.
>
> This change is from r285092 by bapt@. Was this change in behaviour
> intentional?
Nope, I'll fix asap
Thanks for reporting
Best regards,
Bapt
pgpDnNIUX4Hk0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
