Re: Question regarding -s option of rrdcached

Sebastian Harl <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.db.rrdtool.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Bernard,

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 07:02:42PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
> I understand that the new '-s' option for rrdcached will change the
> group ownership of the socket specified by -l following the -s
> argument, eg:
> 
> # rrdcached -s rrdcached -l unix:/tmp/rrdcached.socket
> 
> would change the group ownership of the socket to group 'rrdcached'.
> 
> However, if I specify -s without -l, I would expect the default socket
> created by rrdcached would have the ownership changed, like:
> 
> # rrdcached -s rrdcached
> 
> The default socket created is still owned by user 'root'.
> 
> Is this considered a bug?

Yep, *I* consider this to be a bug. I'll send a patch in a minute. That
patch will also make sure that the -m and -P options will affect the
default socket as well.

I'll leave it up to Tobi to decide whether this is to be considered a
bug or a new feature, though, and whether the patch should be applied to
the 1.4 branch or trunk respectively.

Anyway, please note that (cuz of time constraints) I did *NOT* test the
patch yet. Some feedback (testing all three command line options) would
be greatly appreciated.`

> Also, if you run the following as root:
> 
> # rrdcached -s root -l unix:/tmp/rrdcached.socket
> 
> the following block of code from rrd_daemon.c gets executed:
> 
> 2544	  if (sock->socket_group != (gid_t)-1)
> 2545	  {
> 2546	    if ( (chown(path, getuid(), sock->socket_group) != 0) ||
> 2547	         (chmod(path, (S_IRUSR|S_IWUSR|S_IXUSR | S_IRGRP|S_IWGRP)) != 0) )
> 2548	    {
> 2549	      fprintf(stderr, "rrdcached: failed to set socket group
> permissions (%s)\n", strerror(errno));
> 2550	    }
> 2551	  }
> 
> So I believe there is some issue with the comparison.

I don't see a problem with that? What do you think is wrong about the
comparison? It'll fail if either chown() or chmod() returned an error
which is fine imho.

> Finally, would people object to having a new option where you can
> change the user ownership of the socket?

No objections from my side ;-) You should be careful to get all
combinations of (not) changed user and group ownerships right, though.

HTH,
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.         -- Benjamin Franklin

_______________________________________________
rrd-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 197 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkw8rrEACgkQEFEKc4UBx/zkkwCfdGV5M62c3b5dygzP2jvl/uhn
kRcAnRu79TXl40CLZU5B82uRkLdmsB7U
=Ruu8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.