Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest)

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@7eggert.dyndns.org> wrote:
> > Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > On Solaris, you (currently) use a profile enabled shell (pfsh, pfksh or pfcsh)
> > > that calls getexecuser() in order to find whether there is a specific
> > > treatment needed. If this specific treatment is needed, then the shell calls
> > > execve(/usr/bin/pfexec cmd <args>)
> > > else it calls  execve(cmd <args>)
> > > 
> > > I did recently voted to require all shells to be profile enabled by default.
> >
> > Why? I asume there will only be few programs requiring to be run by a
> > wrapper, and mv /usr/bin/foo to /usr/pfexec-bin/foo;
> > echo $'#!/bin/sh\n/usr/sbin/pfexec /usr/pfexec-bin/foo "$@"' > /usr/bin/foo;
> > chmod 755 /usr/bin/foo
> > should be easier than patching e.g. all callers of cdrecord, and it won't
> > slow down starting non-profiled applications.
> 
> Because the architecture review commitee decided this would be the right way.
> 
> Note that we are on a migration from the classical root/non-root UNIX to a fine 
> grained privileges handling. The current documentation says that you need to 
> have a profile enabled shell as your SHELL in order to be able to use a 
> root-less Solaris.

If the shell was the only program calling cdrecord, this would work out as 
expected.
-- 
My mail reader can beat up your mail reader.