On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:26:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for your patches. I don't have time right know to look at the
> technicalities in detail.
I did not get any response about the patches from upstream yet.
>Do we have all of the relevant Debian LVM
Bastian Blank writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of
device mapper block devices"):
> 4) the two attached patches:
>- devmapper: export functions to set permissions
>- lvm2: add a config entry to overwrite the permissions for new
> devices
On 12/23/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, what are the problems with a default of 666? It fixes any
> of the problems.
Is this a serious question?
Access to group disk can be easily controlled by the
system administrator. On some systems, only root
has this access, on other
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:47:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's what I currently see suggested:
> 1) change devmapper defaults -- patch rejected, no reason given
> 2) explicitly use udev -- problem, this doesn't work for 2.4 kernels
> (2.4 used devfs)
> 3) avoid using devmapper (but this is n
* Bastian Blank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Is there some reason you can't have implement your personally preferred
> > policy of root.root 600 on just your own system? Is there some reason
> > for projecting your personal policies incompletely onto an arbitrary
> > subset of debian's users?
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:35:00AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Is there some reason you can't have implement your personally preferred
>> policy of root.root 600 on just your own system? Is there some reas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:09:37PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> >> > Which procedure? You se
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:35:00AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm trying to ask why you are unwilling to have devmapper disks provide
> a default of root.disk 660? Why can't you allow that to be the default?
You can always make permissions less strict, you can't make them more
strict, as the che
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:09:37PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> > Which procedure? You seem to know something I don't know. ("Overwrite"
> >> > means in my context: chmod of static devi
On 12/17/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Are you saying that the current default permissio
Hi all:
El Sábado, 17 de Diciembre de 2005 16:09, Roger Leigh escribió:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
[...]
>
> Please could you clarify? What *are* you speaking about. I'm
> referring to the fact that when I create o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> > Which procedure? You seem to know something I don't know. ("Overwrite"
>> > means in my context: chmod of static devices or a MODE setting in
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Which procedure? You seem to know something I don't know. ("Overwrite"
> > means in my context: chmod of static devices or a MODE setting in the
> > udev config)
> A chown/chmod of the device is not scalable or practical.
You recreat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > 1) change devmapper defaults -- patch rejected, no reason given
>> Certainly I agree that the defaults should be changed.
>
> At least in my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > > Are you saying t
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:43:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Are you saying that the current default permissions on (eg) /dev/hda*
> > > are insecure and therefore wrong ?
On 12/16/05, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Are you saying that the current default permissions on (eg) /dev/hda*
> > are insecure and therefore wrong ?
>
> Yes, I overwrite them on my machines.
And what is your reason fo
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:54:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes ("Re: Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions
> of device mapper block devices"):
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > [Raul Miller:]
>
Bastian Blank writes ("Re: Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of
device mapper block devices"):
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [Raul Miller:]
> > > 1) change devmapper defaults -- patch rejected, no reason given
&g
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:55:01PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 1) change devmapper defaults -- patch rejected, no reason given
> Certainly I agree that the defaults should be changed.
At least in my point of view, a default is something which can be
changed easily, maybe in a config file. In thi
Guy Maor writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices"):
> I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.
Do you have an opinion about 660 vs 640 ? And the question of
equivalence to root ?
> On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTE
I agree with your technical assessment, Ian.
On 12/13/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the committee's ruling should explicitly castigate
> the devmapper maintainer for failing to engage constructively with any
> of the submitters.
But I disagree with this. I think such a sta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Raul Miller writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of
> device mapper block devices"):
>> I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason fo
Raul Miller writes ("Bug#342455: tech-ctte: Ownership and permissions of device
mapper block devices"):
> I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason for the 600
> permissions, nor the reason to avoid using the disk group.
I basically agree, but I'm go
I've been looking at these bugs, and I can see no good reason for the 600
permissions, nor the reason to avoid using the disk group.
There also seems to be some huge confusion about where responsibility for
setting permissions and group should be handled.
Here's what I currently see suggested:
1
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 05:29:08PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> #341901 is a duplicate I filed before finding the other two. Note
> that the udev package does not create any LVM device other than
> /dev/mapper; the other device creation is done purely by devmapper,
> and its behaviour is not config
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: important
Dear Technical Committee,
Ownership and permissions of device mapper block devices
This concerns Debian bugs #329409, #316883 and #341901:
#329409: group and perms wrong in /dev/mapper
#316883: lvm2:
27 matches
Mail list logo