Well, now you get to own the consequences of your change, which is wrong.

You pointed a gun at your own foot.  Have you noticed that noone else has
holes in their feet?


Juan Picca <juan.pi...@jumapico.uy> wrote:

> > I'm saying you will find this "problem" in 100 places, because the real
> > problem is your own change.
> 
> Yes, you are right.
> The change that gives the error correctly infered by you and Stuart:
> 
> --- /etc/login.conf.orig
> +++ /etc/login.conf
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
>  #
>  default:\
>       :path=/usr/bin /bin /usr/sbin /sbin /usr/X11R6/bin /usr/local/bin 
> /usr/local/sbin:\
> -     :umask=022:\
> +     :umask=027:\
>       :datasize-max=1024M:\
>       :datasize-cur=1024M:\
>       :maxproc-max=256:\
> 
> 
> Currently I'm using:
> 
> --- /etc/login.conf.orig
> +++ /etc/login.conf
> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@
>  # Staff have fewer restrictions and can login even when nologins are set.
>  #
>  staff:\
> +     :umask=027:\
>       :datasize-cur=1536M:\
>       :datasize-max=infinity:\
>       :maxproc-max=512:\
> 
> 
> But maybe a less surprise config for /etc/login.conf can be:
> 
> --- /etc/login.conf.orig
> +++ /etc/login.conf
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@
>  # Be sure to reset these values to system defaults in the default class!
>  #
>  daemon:\
> +     :umask=022:\
>       :ignorenologin:\
>       :datasize=4096M:\
>       :maxproc=infinity:\
> 
> 
> With this umask from the default class can change without affecting the
> daemon class.
> Do the usage of openfiles-max currently follows the same idea?
> 
> 
> Funny fact: by mistake I do
> 
> 
> --- /etc/login.conf.orig
> +++ /etc/login.conf
> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@
>  # This must be set properly for daemons started as root by inetd as well.
>  # Be sure to reset these values to system defaults in the default class!
>  #
> +#:umask=022:\
>  daemon:\
>       :ignorenologin:\
>       :datasize=4096M:\
> 
> 
> And after that I couldn't use doas anymore to correct the file
> 
> $ doas -s
> doas: failed to set user context for target
> 
> 
> Do you accept patches to avoid the interpretation of the last \
> (backslash) as a line continuation in a comment?
> 
> Regards,
> JMPC

Reply via email to