Re: [squid-users] Re: Why squid -z
RW wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:25:06 +0200 Angela Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Ric wrote: I'm wondering why we require squid -z before starting up Squid for the first time. Is there some reason why Squid shouldn't do this automatically when necessary? Just a simple scenario? I use a separate cache file system for all my many squid boxes. Now for some reason one of the boxes get bounced and my squid cache filesystem fails to mount but squid comes up happily and say Oh look I don't have any cache directory structure so let me make one! Root filesystem is limited in space and then this dirty great big directory structure is created and then gets used by squid. In the twinkling of an eye the root filesystem is full! I don't think this could actually happen unless the admin does something perverse. If squid is run under it's own user, it would own the mounted filesystem, but the mountpoint should still belong to root, operator or whatever. The squid daemon wouldn't be able to write the cache directories under the mountpoint unless the admin had explicitly given it write permission or changed the ownership of the mountpoint to the squid user (even though squid doesn't do the mounting). OTOH when you run squid as root (which you probably shouldn't do anyway) To do most of what squid is expected to do these days: net-load routing, fastest-path detection, transparency, acceleration (reverse-proxy), pmtu alteration, other kernel-level socket operations. It _requires_ starting as root and dropping its own privileges down to effective-user when no longer needed. the cache directory needs to be owned by cache_effective_user for squid to use it. It does anyway, root-started or non-root. Are you willing to require all squid users to have another layer of directory structure chown'd to effective-user just for your feature? Adrian has already made the offer to commit the code if you write it. Amos -- Please use Squid 2.6STABLE17+ or 3.0STABLE1+ There are serious security advisories out on all earlier releases.
Re: [squid-users] Re: Why squid -z
On Mar 1, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: RW wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:25:06 +0200 Angela Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Ric wrote: I'm wondering why we require squid -z before starting up Squid for the first time. Is there some reason why Squid shouldn't do this automatically when necessary? Just a simple scenario? I use a separate cache file system for all my many squid boxes. Now for some reason one of the boxes get bounced and my squid cache filesystem fails to mount but squid comes up happily and say Oh look I don't have any cache directory structure so let me make one! Root filesystem is limited in space and then this dirty great big directory structure is created and then gets used by squid. In the twinkling of an eye the root filesystem is full! I don't think this could actually happen unless the admin does something perverse. If squid is run under it's own user, it would own the mounted filesystem, but the mountpoint should still belong to root, operator or whatever. The squid daemon wouldn't be able to write the cache directories under the mountpoint unless the admin had explicitly given it write permission or changed the ownership of the mountpoint to the squid user (even though squid doesn't do the mounting). OTOH when you run squid as root (which you probably shouldn't do anyway) To do most of what squid is expected to do these days: net-load routing, fastest-path detection, transparency, acceleration (reverse-proxy), pmtu alteration, other kernel-level socket operations. It _requires_ starting as root and dropping its own privileges down to effective-user when no longer needed. the cache directory needs to be owned by cache_effective_user for squid to use it. It does anyway, root-started or non-root. Are you willing to require all squid users to have another layer of directory structure chown'd to effective-user just for your feature? Adrian has already made the offer to commit the code if you write it. Amos To be fair to RW, I don't think he was asking for this feature. I was. RW was just offering an opinion on the technical merits of Angela's argument. In any case, this argument is moot since a config flag that defaults to off seems acceptable to all. Ric
[squid-users] Re: Why squid -z
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:14:30 +1300 Amos Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RW wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:25:06 +0200 Angela Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Root filesystem is limited in space and then this dirty great big directory structure is created and then gets used by squid. In the twinkling of an eye the root filesystem is full! I don't think this could actually happen unless the admin does something perverse. If squid is run under it's own user, it would own the mounted filesystem, but the mountpoint should still belong to root ... OTOH when you run squid as root (which you probably shouldn't do anyway) To do most of what squid is expected to do these days: net-load routing, fastest-path detection, transparency, acceleration (reverse-proxy), pmtu alteration, other kernel-level socket operations. I was under the impression (probably wrong) that most thing that involved root access wouldn't commonly involve caching to disk - I didn't know that transparent caching required root access. That was really just an aside though. Are you willing to require all squid users to have another layer of directory structure chown'd to effective-user just for your feature? No (and it's not my feature), what I'm talking about is this: # mkdir /cache # mount /dev/md21 /cache # # chown squid:squid /cache # ls -ld /cache drwxr-xr-x 3 squid squid 512 Mar 1 17:07 /cache # # umount /cache # ls -ld /cache drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Mar 1 17:05 /cache i.e, when the filesystem is not mounted, /cache doesn't belong to squid My point was that Angela's objection to auto-initialization is not well founded. And since hers was the only specific objection to on-by-default, I thought it worth mentioning. I don't really care much about this myself, but I do see merit in having squid do something useful out-of-the-box, e.g. work as a basic cache with access from localhost and private addresses - and that requires automatic initialization of a default cache directory. OTOH that could perhaps become a packaging issue once the option is added.
[squid-users] Re: Why squid -z
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:25:06 +0200 Angela Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Ric wrote: I'm wondering why we require squid -z before starting up Squid for the first time. Is there some reason why Squid shouldn't do this automatically when necessary? Just a simple scenario? I use a separate cache file system for all my many squid boxes. Now for some reason one of the boxes get bounced and my squid cache filesystem fails to mount but squid comes up happily and say Oh look I don't have any cache directory structure so let me make one! Root filesystem is limited in space and then this dirty great big directory structure is created and then gets used by squid. In the twinkling of an eye the root filesystem is full! I don't think this could actually happen unless the admin does something perverse. If squid is run under it's own user, it would own the mounted filesystem, but the mountpoint should still belong to root, operator or whatever. The squid daemon wouldn't be able to write the cache directories under the mountpoint unless the admin had explicitly given it write permission or changed the ownership of the mountpoint to the squid user (even though squid doesn't do the mounting). OTOH when you run squid as root (which you probably shouldn't do anyway) the cache directory needs to be owned by cache_effective_user for squid to use it.
