Bug 833350
Summary: | Tempfile ignores umask for files created in createrepo cache. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Marko Myllynen <myllynen> | |
Component: | createrepo | Assignee: | James Antill <james.antill> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Karel Srot <ksrot> | |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | low | |||
Version: | 6.3 | |||
Target Milestone: | rc | |||
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
OS: | Unspecified | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | createrepo-0.9.9-15.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 1686812 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-02-21 08:42:09 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
Marko Myllynen
2012-06-19 09:36:35 UTC
> createrepo ignores umask for cachedir causing issues when more than one user
> are updating repositories:
Not sure how safe this is, the general assumption is that the createrepo cache is for the repo. ... so you'd only run one at once. It's probably fine though (as I think everything uses atomic updates, and we have multiple workers upstream now).
I wouldn't be shocked if this bug was an rpm thing too.
This request was not resolved in time for the current release. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development. This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in a release. Still failing with createrepo-0.9.9-13.el6: localhost:~> rpm -q createrepo createrepo-0.9.9-13.el6.noarch localhost:~> rpm -V createrepo localhost:~> umask 0002 localhost:~> rm -rf foo localhost:~> mkdir -p foo/cache foo/repo localhost:~> cp $HOME/createrepo-0.9.9-13.el6.noarch.rpm foo/repo/ localhost:~> createrepo -q -c $HOME/foo/cache foo/repo localhost:~> ls -al $HOME/foo/cache total 12K drwxrwxr-x. 2 testuser testuser 4.0K 2012-09-18 11:50 . drwxrwxr-x. 4 testuser testuser 4.0K 2012-09-18 11:50 .. -rw-------. 1 testuser testuser 64 2012-09-18 11:50 createrepo-0.9.9-13.el6.noarch.rpm-6470ef7c38e3bb64e94fb35cfc1054563efd6e983613d4d0dad14a48df955c81-294508-1347958234 localhost:~> Now with createrepo-0.9.9-14.el6 it's getting better: localhost:~> rpm -q createrepo createrepo-0.9.9-14.el6.noarch localhost:~> rpm -V createrepo localhost:~> umask 0002 localhost:~> rm -rf foo localhost:~> mkdir -p foo/cache foo/repo localhost:~> cp $HOME/createrepo-0.9.9-14.el6.noarch.rpm foo/repo/ localhost:~> createrepo -q -c $HOME/foo/cache foo/repo localhost:~> ls -al $HOME/foo/cache total 12K drwxrwxr-x. 2 testuser testuser 4.0K 2012-10-05 10:07 . drwxrwxr-x. 4 testuser testuser 4.0K 2012-10-05 10:05 .. -rwxrwxr-x. 1 testuser testuser 64 2012-10-05 10:07 createrepo-0.9.9-14.el6.noarch.rpm-479ecb301d2b0ad9cdafe0f83ef485c69063ce547cc103ea622ea923defdfd0e-295093-1349392894 localhost:~> Note that after "umask 0002" one would expect files created not being executable. However, since the group write permission is correct, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether this is ok as-is or not. Thanks. I agree with Marko, createrepo should not create executable files. James, can you fix that? Yeh, n/p. I just used (0777 ^ umask) without thinking much about it. Thanks, I'm happy to confirm that createrepo-0.9.9-15.el6 works perfectly! Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0328.html |