--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
[PATCH] pull: Fail if cache directory ownership is suspect. |
|
Date: |
Sun, 5 Jun 2022 02:04:25 +0200 |
New users frequently run ‘sudo guix pull’ which breaks subsequent
unprivileged ‘guix pull’s until manually fixed with chmod -R.
* guix/scripts/pull.scm (guix-pull): Fail if the cache directory (or
its innermost extant parent) is not owned by the user pulling the Guix,
with a hint about ‘sudo -i’.
---
Hi Guix,
Another one in the ‘low-level support noise paper-cut’ series.
The XXX comment would not land upstream, I think.
I didn't test this on a foreign distribution. My understanding is
that distributions where sudo already defaults to ‘-i’ won't throw
the warning nor suffer from the problem.
Kind regards,
T G-R
guix/scripts/pull.scm | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/guix/scripts/pull.scm b/guix/scripts/pull.scm
index f01764637b..1eaf8f087b 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/pull.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/pull.scm
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ (define-module (guix scripts pull)
#:autoload (gnu packages bootstrap) (%bootstrap-guile)
#:autoload (gnu packages certs) (le-certs)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-11)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-34)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-35)
@@ -810,6 +811,31 @@ (define (no-arguments arg _)
((assoc-ref opts 'generation)
(process-generation-change opts profile))
(else
+ ;; Bail out early when users accidentally run, e.g., ’sudo guix pull’.
+ ;; If CACHE-DIRECTORY doesn't yet exist, test where it would end up.
+ (let-values (((st dir) (let loop ((dir (cache-directory)))
+ (let ((st (stat dir #f)))
+ (if st
+ (values (stat dir #f) dir)
+ (loop (dirname dir)))))))
+ (let ((dir:uid (stat:uid st))
+ (our:uid (getuid)))
+ (unless (= dir:uid our:uid)
+ (let ((our:user (passwd:name (getpwuid our:uid)))
+ (dir:user (passwd:name (getpwuid dir:uid))))
+ (raise
+ (condition
+ (&message
+ (message
+ (format #f (G_ "directory ‘~a’ is not owned by user ~a")
+ dir dir:user)))
+ (&fix-hint
+ (hint
+ ;; XXX We could check (getenv "SUDO_USER") to display this
+ ;; only under sudo, but that would imply handling doas…
&c.
+ (format #f (G_ "You should run this command as ~a; use
‘sudo -i’ or equivalent if you really want to pull as ~a.")
+ dir:user our:user)))))))))
+
(with-store store
(with-status-verbosity (assoc-ref opts 'verbosity)
(parameterize ((%current-system (assoc-ref opts 'system))
--
2.36.1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: [bug#55892] [PATCH] pull: Fail if cache directory ownership is suspect. |
|
Date: |
Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:26:34 +0200 |
Maxime,
Thanks for the swift review!
Maxime Devos 写道：
Maybe in that case, it should be reported as NNNN (NNNN = user
number)?
Or would that be simply considered unsupported?
Er… I'd say it's veering confidently into unsupported territory,
yes. But falling back to user IDs costs next to nothing so I made
the change. Thanks for the suggestion.
Odd feeling that the error message might be more robust than some
other part of the code now :-)
Pushed as 7c52cad0464175370c44bd4695e4c01a62b8268f.
Kind regards,
T G-R
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---