On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:45:39AM +0000, Seth Arnold wrote: > I'm worried that turning this flag on for the first time in an LTS release > may be breaking too many expectations. > > Adapting applications may be too much effort; because I don't know what > exactly apport is doing here it is hard to estimate how much effort it > will take to adapt it. Possibly the user-launched apport instances need > to create their own directory on launch. Possibly apport needs a > more invasive redesign. > [...] > Source code searching is not practical. The combination of working > with files in a world-writable sticky directory and not already using > O_EXCL with O_CREAT is not feasible to search for.
FWIW, I think that the scope of the change is small enough (only in world-writable stick directories) and dramatic enough (usually total failure), that the risk is worth the benefit. Excepting the very few special directories (like /var/crash, where the software using them is likely enumerable), I would also argue that breaking stuff in "standard" temp directories (like /tmp) that isn't using O_EXCL is actually _desirable_, given that it is expressly risky to operate in that condition. And, I would suggest that doing this in an LTS is the right thing to do, otherwise you wait 2 years before gaining this defense that would be actively _disabled_ compared to all other distros with a modern version of systemd. And if this is the first noticed problem, that seems to be a reasonably good indication of how rare the case is of it creating "real" problems. -- Kees Cook -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel