Re: pkg_add default umask [Re: 7.3: multitail can't read /etc/multitail.conf]
Am So., 16. Apr. 2023 um 15:32 Uhr schrieb Stuart Henderson : > You probably ran pkg_add with a restrictive umask set. Indeed. > umask 0077 That might explain the problems I have with man mut... Best Martin
pkg_add default umask [Re: 7.3: multitail can't read /etc/multitail.conf]
On 2023/04/16 15:19, Martin Schröder wrote:
> After upgrade to 7.3:
> --*- multitail 6.4.2 (C) 2003-2014 by folk...@vanheusden.com -*--
>
> The following problem occured:
> -
> do_load_config: error loading configfile '/etc/multitail.conf'
> If this is a bug, please report the following information:
> The last system call returned: 13 which means "Permission denied"
> [20230416T15:14:06+0200(106/15)] ms@wyvern 1002:~
> > l /etc/multitail.conf
> -rw--- 1 root wheel 45040 Apr 16 14:33 /etc/multitail.conf
>
> A
>sudo chmod a+r /etc/multitail.conf
> fixed the problem.
>
> Have I somehow misconfigured my system or is this a bug?
>
> Best
> Martin
>
You probably ran pkg_add with a restrictive umask set.
If you do that, permissions on @sample files and some others
(e.g. /var/db/pkg) follow what the umask is set to.
This comes up every now and again.
Personally I would be quite happy for pkg_add/pkg_delete to
force a standard umask, but I think there was some objection when
I floated the diff before.
Index: OpenBSD/PkgAdd.pm
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/pkg_add/OpenBSD/PkgAdd.pm,v
retrieving revision 1.138
diff -u -p -r1.138 PkgAdd.pm
--- OpenBSD/PkgAdd.pm 29 Jul 2022 14:26:45 - 1.138
+++ OpenBSD/PkgAdd.pm 16 Apr 2023 13:31:30 -
@@ -1309,6 +1309,7 @@ sub main
{
my ($self, $state) = @_;
+ umask 0022;
$state->progress->set_header('');
$self->do_quirks($state);
Index: OpenBSD/PkgDelete.pm
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/pkg_add/OpenBSD/PkgDelete.pm,v
retrieving revision 1.48
diff -u -p -r1.48 PkgDelete.pm
--- OpenBSD/PkgDelete.pm1 Feb 2022 16:54:09 - 1.48
+++ OpenBSD/PkgDelete.pm16 Apr 2023 13:31:30 -
@@ -383,6 +383,7 @@ sub main
{
my ($self, $state) = @_;
+ umask 0022;
if ($state->{exclude}) {
my $names = {};
for my $l (@{$state->{setlist}}) {
Re: pkg_add and umask
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:44:37AM BST, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Related to the forwarded mail below, the mandoc.db files are also
> affected by umask.
>
> Would it make sense for pkg_add and pkg_delete to just force a sane
> umask before starting operations?
Please do - it would be very nice indeed.
This bit me in the arse a while back.
Cheers,
Raf
> - Forwarded message from Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> -
>
> From: Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net>
> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:13:53 +0100
> To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22@gmail.com>, ports <ports@openbsd.org>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
> Subject: Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web
> interface in -current]
> Mail-Followup-To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22@gmail.com>, ports
> <ports@openbsd.org>
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > Moving to ports@ ...
> >
> > On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > > Hello Stuart,
> > >
> > > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> > >
> > > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
> >
> > Not sure.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> > umask
> > 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
> >
> > 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
> >
> > 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
> >
> > 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed
> > in
> > /etc) are affected by umask
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
> >
> > 2 and 3 seem correct to me
> >
> > 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
>
> I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
>
>
> - End forwarded message -
>
pkg_add and umask
Related to the forwarded mail below, the mandoc.db files are also
affected by umask.
Would it make sense for pkg_add and pkg_delete to just force a sane
umask before starting operations?
- Forwarded message from Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> -
From: Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:13:53 +0100
To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22@gmail.com>, ports <ports@openbsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Subject: Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web
interface in -current]
Mail-Followup-To: Alessandro DE LAURENZIS <just22@gmail.com>, ports
<ports@openbsd.org>
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> Moving to ports@ ...
>
> On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote:
> > Hello Stuart,
> >
> > On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages?
> >
> > Installing from packages. Isn't that expected?
>
> Not sure.
>
> So:
>
> 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask ("pkg_add moo" with
> umask
> 077, then you can't "pkg_info moo" as a normal user)
>
> 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask
>
> 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask
>
> 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in
> /etc) are affected by umask
>
> ...
>
> 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok.
>
> 2 and 3 seem correct to me
>
> 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
- End forwarded message -
Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: Moving to ports@ ... On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: Hello Stuart, On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote: Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages? Installing from packages. Isn't that expected? Not sure. So: 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask (pkg_add moo with umask 077, then you can't pkg_info moo as a normal user) 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in /etc) are affected by umask ... 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok. 2 and 3 seem correct to me 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional? I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed.
pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
Moving to ports@ ... On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: Hello Stuart, On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote: Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages? Installing from packages. Isn't that expected? Not sure. So: 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask (pkg_add moo with umask 077, then you can't pkg_info moo as a normal user) 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in /etc) are affected by umask ... 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok. 2 and 3 seem correct to me 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional?
Re: pkg_add and umask [was misc@: Re: Cannot connect to CUPS web interface in -current]
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:13:53PM GMT, Marc Espie wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54:34AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: Moving to ports@ ... On 2015/03/10 11:32, Alessandro DE LAURENZIS wrote: Hello Stuart, On Tue 10/03/2015 08:28, Stuart Henderson wrote: Is this while building the port, or just installing from packages? Installing from packages. Isn't that expected? Not sure. So: 1. Database files in /var/db/pkg are affected by umask (pkg_add moo with umask 077, then you can't pkg_info moo as a normal user) 2. Normal installed files from the package are not affected by umask 3. @sample'd files with an explicit @mode are not affected by umask 4. @sample'd files *without* an explicit mode (e.g. normal files installed in /etc) are affected by umask ... 1 could be argued either way, but I think current behaviour is ok. 2 and 3 seem correct to me 4 is surprising to me. Marc, is that intentional? I kindof think 4 should be forbidden or default'd to something sane, indeed. Hi Marc, This bit me in the arse a year ago but I hadn't reported it as I was fairly new to OpenBSD back then. It would, indeed, be nice to have a sane default and able to use 'pkg_add' without issues - those that use, i.e. UMASK=077, that is :^) Regards, Raf
