Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-18 Thread Julian Gilbey
The main reason I didn't want to have mktex{mf,tfm,pk} be setuid is because they run all sorts of different programs - metafont, gsftopk, etc. - which can (IIRC) be replaced by the user. Even if they can't, their inputs can, and the inputs are turing-complete macro languages. If

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-16 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Fri, 14 May 1999 19:04:01 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:02:40 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: Glad to hear all of this. I just have one comment: - The mktexlsr, mktexdir and mktexupd scripts must not be setuid. If they are, anyone could run them,

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-16 Thread Julian Gilbey
And having mktex{mf,tfm,pk} writing to a scratch directory defeats the purpose of making the fonts directory read only, as anyone could then create a corrupt font file in the scratch directory and run mktexupd. This is a problem, but isn't there some simple, efficient way to

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-16 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Sun, 16 May 1999 21:31:14 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: And having mktex{mf,tfm,pk} writing to a scratch directory defeats the purpose of making the fonts directory read only, as anyone could then create a corrupt font file in the scratch directory and run mktexupd. This is a

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-15 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:02:40 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: Glad to hear all of this. I just have one comment: - The mktexlsr, mktexdir and mktexupd scripts must not be setuid. If they are, anyone could run them, which is unnecessary. Any extra privileges they require

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-14 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:02:40 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: Glad to hear all of this. I just have one comment: - The mktexlsr, mktexdir and mktexupd scripts must not be setuid. If they are, anyone could run them, which is unnecessary. Any extra privileges they require will be

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-13 Thread Julian Gilbey
[Cc'ing to -devel] Package: tetex-base Version: 0.9.990406-1 Out of the box, /var/spool/texmf/ls-R is owned by root and mode 644. Therefore all font generation operations get an error: /usr/share/texmf/web2c/mktexupd: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable. Changing it to mode 666 works

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-13 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Thu, 13 May 1999 11:25:10 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote: [Cc'ing to -devel] Package: tetex-base Version: 0.9.990406-1 Out of the box, /var/spool/texmf/ls-R is owned by root and mode 644. Therefore all font generation operations get an error: /usr/share/texmf/web2c/mktexupd:

Re: Bug#37606: /var/spool/texmf/ls-R unwritable

1999-05-13 Thread Julian Gilbey
Glad to hear all of this. I just have one comment: - The mktexlsr, mktexdir and mktexupd scripts must not be setuid. If they are, anyone could run them, which is unnecessary. Any extra privileges they require will be gained when they are called from other setuid processes.