WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: [SOLVED] build script root ownership question  (Read 8054 times)

aus9

  • Guest
[SOLVED] build script root ownership question
« on: March 04, 2013, 06:18:55 PM »
Hi

My build scripts are run by user tc

Recently I discovered that something was complaining something was not owned by root. I have always given root to any tce.installed script so my question is,
should I build using sudo su?

if I need to use sudo su, I will do so after running the wget source tarball

Or build under tc and then do something like
Code: [Select]
sudo chown -R root:root <target-folder>

trivia
###

the culprit is my foomatic-rip where ownership is currently

Code: [Select]
ls -al /usr/local/lib/cups
total 0
drwxr-xr-x  4 tc staff    80 Feb 20 17:20 ./
drwxr-xr-x 33 tc staff 15920 Feb 20 17:20 ../
drwxr-xr-x  2 tc staff    60 Feb 20 17:20 backend/
drwxr-xr-x  2 tc staff    60 Feb 20 17:20 filter/

no cups loaded just the foo*-rip
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 07:24:47 AM by aus9 »

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2013, 02:49:11 AM »
wiki will also be wrong, so let me explain it.

last change with old way is @ Last modified: 2012/10/24 18:27
Quote
Adding Custom Startup Scripts
blah blah
chown -R root:staff /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed
chmod -R 775 /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed

I added @ Last modified: 2012/10/24 18:31 a new section and
Quote
Important step before you move on
blah blah
mkdir -p /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed
touch /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed/package
sudo chown -R root:staff /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed
sudo chmod -R 775 /tmp/package/usr/local/tce.installed

Now to explain my change, in the history old way I changed a few things
I added the sudo
yes it was me.

But at no stage did I add any sudo su, or instruction to do this script as root. That means the old way, would have failed as local user because you can not change chown to root without being root eg
Code: [Select]
touch aa
tc@box:~$ chown root aa
chown: changing ownership of `aa': Operation not permitted

So I assumed because of NO mention that the script was to be run as root, it needed the sudo command

Now if we now assume script is to be run as root, then we can remove the sudo, but then we must tell user that script is to be run as root.

AFAIK at no version does anyone say to run as root. It that clearer?

Sorry if this sounds trivial but to me its important. From the local village idiot point of view, users can follow the wiki and that leads to more downstream maintainers, with luck.  If I was ashamed of all my errors I would not have submitted anything. And I hoping you can see, by exposing my errors that we improve,  so others don't fall for the same mistakes but make their own new mistakes or better still none at all.

cheers and thanks for reading
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 04:45:18 AM by aus9 »

Online Rich

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2013, 10:05:27 AM »
Hi aus9
For the few extensions I created I wrote a script that builds, creates the files (tcz, info, dep, etc.), and bundles the
files in an encrypted tarball ready for submission. I made it a point to prefix only those commands in the script
that require it with sudo. This way the script does not need to be run as root.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2013, 06:52:44 PM »
I understand, but maybe you could share a template of
owner:group
permissions

for each relevant folder

If I run it as root I am likely to get root:root
but looking at /etc there seems to be mixture?

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2013, 12:47:38 AM »
trying to be smart I booted with bootcode base norestore to check TCB owners and permissions.

Code: [Select]
for usr
total 0
drwxrwxr-x    7 root     staff          140 Apr 30  2010 .
drwxrwxr-x   17 root     staff          380 Mar  6 08:49 ..
drwxrwxr-x    2 root     staff         3440 Feb 17 16:32 bin
drwxrwxr-x    3 root     staff          640 Mar  6 08:46 lib
drwxrwxr-x    5 root     staff          100 Jan  7  2012 local
drwxrwxr-x    2 root     staff          360 Jan 10 05:15 sbin
drwxrwxr-x   11 root     staff          220 Nov  9  2010 share

for usr/local
total 0
drwxrwxr-x    5 root     staff          100 Jan  7  2012 .
drwxrwxr-x    7 root     staff          140 Apr 30  2010 ..
drwxrwxr-x    2 root     staff           40 Mar  4  2010 bin
drwxrwxr-x    3 root     staff           60 Mar  4  2010 lib
drwxrwxr-x    2 root     staff           40 Jan  7  2012 tce.installed

inferred rule root:staff chmod 775

now load tcz cups and check /usr/local/etc (which has init.d sub-folder for starting etc services)
There is a mixture in there but for cups
root:root 755

2) because tc is a member of staff there are two ways of doing this
root:root chmod 744 would work IMHO
or
root:staff chmod 744 would work IMHO

Code: [Select]
sudo /usr/local/etc/init.d/cups start
should work and

that way we can have a blanket rule for tcz submitters to use
root:staff for all submissions but for any subfolder that contains config files or daemons, they are to use 744

I do agree that root:root focuses the mind that its a root thing but I am trying to have only 3 rules

rule (1) owner for all files is root:staff
rule (2) any config file or daemon file chmod 744.....ie  rwx  r--  r--
rule (3) all others are chmod 775................................ie  rwx  rwx  r-x

IMHO any tcz-doc can still still be read, any executable lying under /usr/local/bin is still executable by tc user
but to check status of (say) cups would now be a root thing as currently I can check by tc user
Code: [Select]
tc@box:~$ /usr/local/etc/init.d/cups status

cups is not running.

what do others think?

Offline gerald_clark

  • TinyCore Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4254
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2013, 12:50:46 AM »
There may be other users than tc and root.
They need to be able to execute programs and search directories too.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2013, 03:52:15 AM »
They need to be able to execute programs and search directories too.

sure and what is stopping them reading it if the read is showing as r ...r....r?
and what is stopping them from executing it if the execute is showing as ....x.....x.....x?......for rule (3)

Other users can become temporary root under  rule (2) by running sudo <command>

but I don't care whether the rule or suggested rule is crap, as long as someone can tell me what ownership and permissions you would like for tcz submissions --
as the only rule AFAIK in the wiki is for tce.installed

should any build script be run as root or not?

If not, as Rich prefers to run as local, and thats exactly what I have been doing, then lets be clear what changes to make please.

Thanks for reading

trivia
####
rule (3) is a made up rule by me and not an official rule.....I am just trying to find out what is the official rule
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 03:54:51 AM by aus9 »

Online Rich

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11315
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2013, 12:30:43 PM »
Hi aus9
I think you are over-thinking this. I just checked the Wiki and it has two references to the word root, neither of
which refer to running as root. It also has two references to sudo, neither of which refer to becoming root.
I would say run as the default user (tc) and change the permissions as per the  Adding Custom Startup Scripts
paragraph in the Wiki.
Then load and test the extension, if something complains about needing root ownership, modify the script
you use to build and package that extension to correct only the files and or directories that require it, and
run it again. Repeat as required.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2013, 06:11:45 PM »
Rich

thankyou for your thoughts. Let me expand a little so you know why I am asking.

1) All of my printer submissions can not be tested by me, as I have a printer that can not use a open source driver. So testing is very limited.

2) As the local village idiot, I seek clarity. I am aware we live in a grey world, but why can't we have rules that we can see.

If I  go into /usr/local I see differences in ownership and permissions. Yes sorry if the word root was confusing in above, I mean either root ownership or root powers when I talk about root.....Please forgive me.  Now because I have loaded some private extensions I happy to know I can spot some issues.......but the point is.....why not have a set of rules to comply with?

below is example of someone not following the rules (me) but what rules?
Code: [Select]
ls -al /usr/local
total 0
drwxr-xr-x 13 tc   staff   260 Oct 26  2009 ./
drwxr-xr-x  7 tc   staff   140 Oct 26  2009 ../
drwxr-xr-x  2 tc   staff 11320 Oct 26  2009 bin/
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root    260 Nov  9 19:22 chromium-browser/
drwxr-xr-x  4 root root     80 Mar  7 14:48 chromium-browser-addons/
drwxr-xr-x 18 root root    460 Mar  7 14:48 etc/
drwxr-xr-x  7 root root    240 Dec 14  2010 include/
drwxr-xr-x 31 root root  15760 Mar  7 14:48 lib/
drwxr-xr-x  5 root root    640 Oct 29  2011 libexec/
drwxr-xr-x 10 root root    200 Aug 22  2012 plugins/
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root   2700 Dec 14  2010 sbin/
drwxr-xr-x 49 tc   staff  1020 Mar  7 14:48 share/
drwxrwxr-x  2 root staff  3220 Mar  7 14:48 tce.installed/

above ownership of tc:staff indicates I have built tczs as local user. Once I can see the other owner/permissons it reasonable to suggest there should be a rule.

I repeat that users should be able to follow the wiki and everyone should be following the same template or set of rules.

AAAH some one might suggest that all I need to do, is look at existing owners and permissions?

In below example, there are variations, suggesting we need rules

If something is owned by root, it can be rwx even if its only a text file

I could go on, but I hope you see what I on about?

Code: [Select]
s -al /etc
total 176
drwxr-xr-x 10 root root    880 Mar  7 14:48 ./
drwxrwxr-x 17 root staff   360 Dec 21 23:29 ../
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root     21 Mar  7 14:48 OpenCL -> /usr/local/etc/OpenCL
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root    100 Mar  7 14:48 X11/
-rw-r--r--  1 root root    574 Mar  7 14:48 blkid.tab
-rw-r--r--  1 root root    574 Mar  7 14:48 blkid.tab.old
-rw-------  1 root staff   140 Mar  5  2010 busybox.conf
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root     26 Mar  7 14:48 environment -> /usr/local/etc/environment
drwxr-xr-x  4 root root    120 Apr 19  2009 fonts/
-rw-r--r--  1 root root    752 Mar  7 14:48 fstab
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    65 Mar  7 14:48 group
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    63 Mar  7 14:48 group-
-rw-rw----  1 root staff    56 Mar  7 14:48 gshadow
-rw-rw----  1 root staff    54 Mar  7 14:48 gshadow-
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    26 Mar  5  2010 host.conf
-rw-r--r--  1 root root      4 Mar  7 14:48 hostname
-rw-r--r--  1 root root    274 Mar  7 14:48 hosts
drwxrwxr-x  3 root staff   220 Jan 21 05:15 init.d/
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   637 Aug 23  2011 inittab
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    11 Nov 25  2011 issue
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  50523 Mar  7 14:48 ld.so.cache
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    15 Mar  5  2010 ld.so.conf
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   801 Aug 15  2011 mke2fs.conf
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    46 Mar  5  2010 modprobe.conf
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   101 Nov 25  2011 motd
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root staff    12 Aug  9  2011 mtab -> /proc/mounts
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   189 Mar  5  2010 nsswitch.conf
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root     20 Mar  7 14:48 pam.d -> /usr/local/etc/pam.d
-rw-r--r--  1 root root    161 Mar  7 14:48 passwd
drwxrwxr-x  2 root staff    60 Mar  5  2010 pcmcia/
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   972 Jun  9  2012 profile
drwxrwxr-x  2 root staff    40 Mar  5  2010 profile.d/
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff  6455 Nov  6  2011 protocols
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    52 Mar  7 14:48 resolv.conf
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff  1615 Mar  5  2010 rpc
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff   185 Mar  5  2010 securetty
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root     23 Mar  7 14:48 security -> /usr/local/etc/security
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff 11349 Mar  5  2010 services
-rw-r-----  1 root root    134 Mar  7 14:48 shadow
-rw-rw-r--  1 root staff    52 Mar  5  2010 shells
drwxr-xr-x  4 root root    220 Mar  7 14:48 skel/
-r--r-----  1 root root    293 Mar  5  2010 sudoers
drwxrwxr-x  2 root staff   280 Mar  7 14:48 sysconfig/
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root     80 Aug 11  2012 udev/

None of my tczs use /etc

thanks for reading

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2013, 06:55:29 PM »
Hi Aus9, I'm not sure I totally understand what you're trying to suggest, but my 2c anyway...

General steps for building an extension are usually:
./configure
make
make DESTDIR=/tmpinstalllocation install
#package it up

I personally find it good practice to make sure that 3rd step (make install) is run as root. That's what the person who wrote the application/library/etc expected to happen when their code was built, and the Makefile might set specific permissions (eg, etc files might need to be owned by nobody:myspecialgroup or something) or other weird things, so NOT running the make install as root is potentially going to introduce odd and hard to solve bugs in extensions.

Also, it can be difficult to write up one set of rules/instructions/tempate that will work for every app -
* pppd has it's /etc files hardcoded
* php needs INSTALLPATH=... make install (or something along those lines, don't remember exactly) instead of make DESTDIR=... install
* pptp, dwm, and a few other apps don't even have configure files
* some apps use automake

There are countless other oddities out there, beyond what I've listed. Those are just the ones I've personally dealt with. A set of rules/templates/instructions more specific than what we already have seems counterproductive.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2013, 01:20:53 AM »
althalus

ok thats good to know. I will repeat that I would like the wiki to explain what owner:group and permissions are needed. Your answer is the first one to provide facts that I have not verified but accept ok.

Now the details. It appears that what you meant to say was
Code: [Select]
sudo make DESTDIR=/tmpinstalllocation install
inferred from your remark
Quote
I personally find it good practice to make sure that 3rd step (make install) is run as root

########
So pretend you are new to tcz submissons. So ideally you follow the wiki. (Yes I know there is more than one, and forum posts)

If the reason why others can not give me a simple of rules, based somewhat on your answer, no problem, I will close this thread  shortly so people don't feel harassed. But I would like to see if you now see why I am posting which you did understand before.

I would like to edit wiki to say something like
" Please check that your owner:group and permissions will allow your software to run as securely as possible"

I would appreciate it if you now understand me and reply, if not, well boo hoo I will close this thread as solved in a couple of days.

I am about the rebuild something that is a depend for something else, and naturally have one more item to add to my checklist before submission

I am on a learning curve and depend almost entirely on wikis as I may lack the superior skills some other have. In that regard, I am still a newbie.

thanks for reading


Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2013, 03:27:38 AM »
I would like to edit wiki to say something like
" Please check that your owner:group and permissions will allow your software to run as securely as possible"
yes, but for that particular application, how do I do that? What ARE the correct permissions? Besides, I would argue that it's only necessary for setuid and etc files. Both of which are not a problem if you've run make install as root.

aus9

  • Guest
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2013, 04:14:04 AM »
althalus

Do you have a sense of humour?

Quote
What ARE the correct permissions?

That was my original question.  Does the penny drop yet?

ok looking at http://www.tinycorelinux.net/4.x/x86/tcz/src/lxpanel/lxpanel.build, from bmarkus
Code: [Select]
find $TMPDIR/ -type d | xargs chmod -v 755;

probably built as root, so I will enforce root:root and see what it looks compared to other tczs
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 05:07:20 AM by aus9 »

Offline althalus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2013, 05:55:11 AM »
Do you have a sense of humour?

Quote
What ARE the correct permissions?

That was my original question.  Does the penny drop yet?
You miss my point. The point is, that question can and often does have a different answer for each application.

Offline bmarkus

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7183
    • My Community Forum
Re: build script root ownership question
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2013, 06:21:42 AM »
There are two categories of ownership and ACL. One is generic, related to Core itself like /usr/local/tce.installed etc. It is independent from the specific application.

Second category is application specific. You may need 600 on specific files, 644 on others, 755 or very more or to execute file as root without being root lioke Xorg servers, etc.
Béla
Ham Radio callsign: HA5DI

"Amateur Radio: The First Technology-Based Social Network."