Re: Ownership/protection (was Re: [HACKERS] Portability)

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Ownership/protection (was Re: [HACKERS] Portability)
Date: 1999-11-30 19:36:01
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911302029570.13278-100000@Vessla.DoCS.UU.SE
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The difficulty with encouraging people to su to root for install is that
> it's so easy to make the files root-owned and thereby create a security
> problem. Perhaps the right compromise is to add a --owner switch to
> "make install", and to have it refuse to install if the (given or
> defaulted) ownership is "root" ?

See Vince's email about the configure switch to be used in install. That
is what I was shooting for. I am not sure to what extend initdb should use
those settings (recall: autoconf is not for configuring run time stuff)
but if you *insist* on running initdb as root (too lazy to su, forgot to,
etc.) there should be an option, as there is now.

> offhand I can't think of any reason that any postgres-owned processes
> need to be able to write in the bin, lib, or include hierarchies. Can
> anyone else think of one?

They better not write there. That would certainly be a major bug.

> BTW, do we have a check in the postmaster to refuse to start if its euid
> is root? Shouldn't we?

There is a check and it refuses to start.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 1999-11-30 20:19:54 Re: [HACKERS] sort on huge table
Previous Message Brian E Gallew 1999-11-30 18:49:24 Re: [HACKERS] Re: tab completion in psql