Bug 1588016
Summary: | root directory misses write permission | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tomáš Korbař <tomas.korb> |
Component: | filesystem | Assignee: | Ondrej Vasik <ovasik> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 28 | CC: | jskarvad, kdudka, ovasik, pknirsch |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-06-06 14:13:25 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Tomáš Korbař
2018-06-06 13:24:47 UTC
(In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > Expected results: > drwxr-xr-x /root Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > (In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > > Expected results: > > drwxr-xr-x /root > > Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? No, but it should be onwer writeable :) drwxr-x--- /root (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2) > (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > > (In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > > > Expected results: > > > drwxr-xr-x /root > > > > Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? > > No, but it should be onwer writeable :) > drwxr-x--- /root Is there any reason for read only mode? (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2) > > (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > > > (In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > > > > Expected results: > > > > drwxr-xr-x /root > > > > > > Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? > > > > No, but it should be onwer writeable :) > > drwxr-x--- /root > > Is there any reason for read only mode? I am able to reproduce it on my f27 machine too. Maybe it's there for a longer time and it has been just spotted due to change in SELinux policy enforcing dac_override check in f28+ :) (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2) > > > (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > > > > (In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > > > > > Expected results: > > > > > drwxr-xr-x /root > > > > > > > > Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? > > > > > > No, but it should be onwer writeable :) > > > drwxr-x--- /root > > > > Is there any reason for read only mode? > > I am able to reproduce it on my f27 machine too. Maybe it's there for a > longer time and it has been just spotted due to change in SELinux policy > enforcing dac_override check in f28+ :) It seems it's there since 2009, commit cd01d2d6d54f59ef8e177d0391bc734fba470ef4, change due to bug 517575. (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #5) > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #4) > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #3) > > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #2) > > > > (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #1) > > > > > (In reply to Tomáš Korbař from comment #0) > > > > > > Expected results: > > > > > > drwxr-xr-x /root > > > > > > > > > > Do you seriously think that /root should be world-readable? > > > > > > > > No, but it should be onwer writeable :) > > > > drwxr-x--- /root > > > > > > Is there any reason for read only mode? > > > > I am able to reproduce it on my f27 machine too. Maybe it's there for a > > longer time and it has been just spotted due to change in SELinux policy > > enforcing dac_override check in f28+ :) > > It seems it's there since 2009, commit > cd01d2d6d54f59ef8e177d0391bc734fba470ef4, change due to bug 517575. So it is intentional :) Well, personally, I can say that I don't like this "hack". I am closing it as a dupe of bug 517575, because I do not have any real issue (so far) with this change, I just don't like this approach :) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 517575 *** |