Bug 54866 - ACL support should be optional (as with systemd)
Summary: ACL support should be optional (as with systemd)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: udisks
Classification: Unclassified
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: low enhancement
Assignee: David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail)
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-09-13 13:14 UTC by Allin Cottrell
Modified: 2016-02-29 15:51 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
i915 platform:
i915 features:


Attachments
patch against current git (2.90 KB, patch)
2012-09-13 13:14 UTC, Allin Cottrell
Details | Splinter Review

Description Allin Cottrell 2012-09-13 13:14:46 UTC
Created attachment 67107 [details] [review]
patch against current git

udisks2 (git and current release) will not build without libacl.
Other related components such as systemd/udev make ACLs optional
and I believe udisks should do the same.
Comment 1 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2012-09-13 14:02:45 UTC
Chowning the directory /run/media/$USER to $USER is a security hole - there's a reason we use ACLs. I think the only way to do this without ACLs is to use a shared thing like /media - and we don't want that for obvious reasons.

You also provide no reason for dropping such a small dependency as libacl - we already depend on GLib which is much heavier.

Anyway, sorry, but I don't think it makes sense to make this configurable. Closing WONTFIX.
Comment 2 Allin Cottrell 2012-09-13 16:02:10 UTC
To respond on the rationale for making ACL support optional. I have no problem with udisks requiring GLib, since it is used by many things on my system. But on a personal-use laptop or desktop I have no need for ACLs, no other software I use requires libacl, and the kernel is compiled without ACL support.

I think you should allow users who are building their own systems to judge what's a relevant security hole. I have no problem with use of ACLs being the default, as with systemd/udev, only with its being mandatory.
Comment 3 Andrey Mazo 2015-03-19 04:58:36 UTC
Now, with a fix for bug #61162 committed in git [1], it looks like, people can live with the added potential security hole.
(as Allin, I don't have ACL turned on in my single-user desktop kernel either and I want to get rid of otherwise unused libacl dependency)

So, please, reconsider adding --disable-acl configure option, proposed in David Heidelberger's patch [2] together with a bit safer group chown().

[1] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/udisks/commit/?id=86bcf135
[2] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2014-April/001589.html
Comment 4 Martin Pitt 2016-02-29 15:51:00 UTC
Adjusted David Heidelberger's patch to current git, and applied: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/udisks/commit/?id=ce392b4e1


Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.