Re: run_kannel_box - forcing umask to be 077
Alan McNatty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.mobile.kannel.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Catalyst IT Limited |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ah great - thanks Alex, I will have a look at this. Cheers, Alan Alexander Malysh wrote: > Hi Alan, > > please stop using run_kannel_box because it's deprecated, just use: > /.../bearerbox --daemon > /.../smsbox --daemon > > Thanks, > Alex > > P.S. A new init scripts for debian using --daemon option are highly > welcome... > > Alan McNatty schrieb: >> Hi All, >> >> We're been on stock standard debian kannel installs for awhile now so >> it's simply a matter of using kannel out of the box these days which >> is great. >> >> However we've had an ongoing annoyance running kannel on servers which >> we don't maintain. I won't go into the annoying details of why but the >> long and short of it is that we have to do some user hopping to tail >> the logs (you have to be able to become the kannel user or root to >> view the logs, group access is not enough). >> >> The log permissons seem to be set in run_kannel_box (which is used by >> default), it hard wires the umask (overriding anything set in an >> init.d script or login.defs, etc) to be 077. My belief here is that >> this sort of thing is an installation / configuration setting and >> shouldn't be dictated in code. But better managed in (for example) >> postinstall scripts and umask setting, etc. Thus making it >> configurable to individual requirements, server set-up, etc. >> >> Consider the default debian policy (for better or worse) is 022 but >> the kannel user gets added with the group 'nogroup' and then finally >> the umask is set to 077 by run_kannel_box for the running boxes. Would >> it not make more sense / be simpler / more configurable to be >> kannel.adm with an init.d umask setting to 077 (or 027). Note the >> logrotate script sets the rotated logs to kannel.adm with mode 640. >> >> Ultimately I guess I'm asking if anyone would object if this enforcing >> was removed in an upstream release? All thoughts, comments, etc >> welcome/appreciated. >> >> Consider (from utils/run_kannel_box.c): >> >> @@ -384,10 +384,6 @@ >> atexit(remove_pidfile); >> write_pidfile(); >> >> - /* Set the umask to a known value, rather than inheriting >> - * an unknown one. */ >> - umask(077); >> - >> /* Leave file descriptors 0, 1, and 2 pointing to harmless >> * places, and close all other file descriptors. */ >> rebind_standard_streams(); >> >> I am happy to submit some debian patches to get the discussion going >> also. >> >> Cheers, >> Alan >> > > > -- Alan McNatty Catalyst IT DDI: +64 (0)4 8032201, or TEL: +64 (0)4 4992267