[arch-projects] [initscripts][PATCH 2/2] rc.d: Add check to cleanly abort rc.d script if user doesn't have root privileges

[Seblu]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Seblu <seblu at seblu.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, checking for root privileges for all actions is the easiest and
>> simplest method.  However, the status actions which currently, in most
>> cases, can done as a regular user will require root privileges from
>> now on if we go this way.
> Yes. We speak of about 23 packages where a rc.d script should be
> corrected about status.
>
> cd /var/abs && grep -ril '/etc/rc.d/functions' *|xargs grep --color
> 'status)'|wc -l
>
> I'm ready to propose an updated version of this 23 rc.d script, if
> there is a workload isssue.
>
>>
>> I have another (better, IMO) idea: enforce root privilege for all
>> actions except status.
>> Pros:
>> - no hardcoded list
> you can see status as a list of 1 element ;)
>
>> - regular users will still need be able to do: /etc/rc.d/foo status
>>
>> For the few packages that currently require root privilege for the
>> status action, we can argue that they are misusing the status function
>> as they don't follow the daemon prototype
>> /usr/share/pacman/rc-script.proto which has:
>>  status)
>>    stat_busy "Checking $daemon_name status";
>>    ck_status $daemon_name
>>    ;;
>> which doesn't need root privilege. So their current status function
>> should be renamed to info, for example.
>>
>> This would imply simply adding the following to /etc/rc.d/functions :
>>
>> need_root() {
>>  (( $EUID != 0 )) && printf 'You need to be root.\n' && exit 1
>> }
>>
>> if [[ "$1" != 'status' ]]; then
>>      need_root
>> fi
>>
> Doesn't forget, /etc/rc.d/functions are sourced by others script than
> rc.d scripts.
> For example /var/abs/extra/ifplugd/ifplugd.action which doesn't have
> $1 the same meaning as your code expect.
>
> Even if your solution is a compromise, I think in the case of status
> (23 pkg in the official repo), there is no need to make an exception
> to do things well.
>
> Tom / Dave / Thomas have you an opinion?
>

Dave, Tom, i see your comments in this bug :
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25271 and this doesn't make be happy.

Here I wanted to make adjustments while maintaining the will to
implement this bug. As i said from the begining, maybe we cannot want
to do that...


-- 
Sébastien Luttringer
www.seblu.net