[arch-general] wrong file permissions in /var/lib/pacman/local

[Dan McGee]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak
<arch-general-ml at nemesis13.de> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak
>> <arch-general-ml at nemesis13.de> wrote:
>>> Hubert Grzeskowiak schrieb:
>>>> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak
>>>>> <arch-general-ml at nemesis13.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Hubert Grzeskowiak
>>>>>>> <arch-general-ml at nemesis13.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> hi there,
>>>>>>>> can it be, that the some dirs written to /var/lib/pacman/local/* are not
>>>>>>>> chmod'ed properly? sometimes i get errors because as user i don't have
>>>>>>>> the permissions to do anything with it (it's set to drwx------). this
>>>>>>>> only occurs on some packages (eg. the new nmap package). other dirs and
>>>>>>>> files inside all (also the corrupted) directories seem okay (files:
>>>>>>>> -rw-r--r--; dirs: drwxr-xr-x)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i played around with umask and sudo (always used on de-/installations)
>>>>>>>> with no result -everything was okay- so i conclude it's a per-package
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>> It's not, those files are not installed directly out of the package -
>>>>>>> pacman writes them itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is root's umask?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> root's and user's umask is the same: 0077
>>>>> Can you try setting it to 0022 (the default, and what I have on my
>>>>> system) and see if the problem persists? If it does not, we then know
>>>>> the cause...
>>>>> Still, pacman's explicit chmod of this dir should fix this... gah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, does pacman also explicitly set its own umask anywhere?
>>>>>
>>>> ok. gonna change it before updating the next time
>>>>
>>> upgraded as root with umask 0022 and it's all okay.
>>
>> That's so weird... so pacman's umask setting just doesn't work?
>>
>
> either that or it's sudo. i've only tested it with the default umask so
> far and without sudo. if the bug would appear there, it would be easy to
> say that it's pacman setting his own strange permissions.
>
> i think, we need a few more tests for a precise statement:
> -sudo pacman with non-default umask
> -su/root pacman with non-default umask
> sry that i don't make it myself, but i'm currently kinda out of time
> unfortunately.

sudo might do some weird LD_PRELOAD magic, causing the umask() syscall
to not really work right- that is my best guess.

-Dan