Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 484475

Summary:	Change package permissions to rw-r--r--
Product:	Red Hat Satellite 5	Reporter:	Xixi <xdmoon>
Component:	Satellite Synchronization	Assignee:	Pradeep Kilambi <pkilambi>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Jan Hutař <jhutar>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	422	CC:	ahecox, bperkins, cperry, dgoodwin, james.leddy, tao, vzlatkin
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	456562	Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-02-24 17:07:59 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Xixi 2009-02-07 00:06:13 UTC

Cloning for Satellite as there has been a related customer issue reported.

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #456562 +++

When porting the package download from perl to java, tomcat will need to be able
to read all of the pacakges, but sat-sync and rhnpush currently marks the
packages as 640 with apache:root ownership.

This needs to be changed to 644.

--- Additional comment from cperry on 2008-08-01 14:46:21 EDT ---

Any other viable options? 
- Make tomcat user in the apache group *and* then change sat-sync code to write
stuff:
0640 apache:apache
from
0640 apache:root

Does 'root' need this access at group level to the files? 

Making the files globally readable by change:
0644 
is less of a change to do, less risky in code, but does expose the entire
/var/satellite/ contents to any normal user on that has ssh access, but is this
a problem, most likely not. 

So, 0644 sounds fine, I think the risk exposure is minimal. 

Pretty sure this is a one liner to change:
satellite_tools/syncLib.py:        setPermsPath(self.full_path, user='apache',
group='root', chmod=0640)

*if* we make a change, we will need as part of upgrade process, a separate bug
to track and if needed as part of upgrade change permissions. 


Cliff

--- Additional comment from pkilambi on 2008-08-01 15:12:37 EDT ---

fixed and upgrade process already handles this perms update.

--- Additional comment from dgoodwin on 2008-09-05 11:44:28 EDT ---

Verified in spacewalk 0.2. Packages are being stored with 0644. (-rw-r--r--)

Comment 5 James M. Leddy 2009-02-12 20:02:38 UTC

repsonding to comment #3

Prad,  They're basically asking for apache/apache 664 because they have scripts that run as non-apache user and they want to write as apache group.  Is that possible?

Comment 7 James M. Leddy 2009-02-12 21:21:27 UTC

GS would like 664, as in group read/write

Comment 16 Issue Tracker 2009-03-12 18:54:56 UTC

Closing this as per today's meeting.  Goldman would have liked to see this
changed.

Internal Status set to 'Resolved'
Status set to: Closed by Tech
Resolution set to: 'Rejected'

This event sent from IssueTracker by jleddy 
 issue 218040