Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:31:27 -0700 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Subject: Re: Default value for UIDs Message-ID: <20110628203127.GA39023@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimcfLkDEb2%2Bg=sLH-KUo4rKck7htg@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTimw9c_jYCeomW50EckGpsP9Gv574Q@mail.gmail.com> <20110628165911.GC44024@dan.emsphone.com> <BANLkTinQYESEEtG8mE_oe_VPYCQZtbdjjQ@mail.gmail.com> <BLU0-SMTP185593CFA319ED565172196A9560@phx.gbl> <BLU0-SMTP107CCB5B4727769D3BD978DA9560@phx.gbl> <BANLkTimcfLkDEb2%2Bg=sLH-KUo4rKck7htg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:11:54PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 28 June 2011 20:57, Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 28 June 2011 20:50, jhell <jhell@dataix.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 06:30:23PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > >>> On 28 June 2011 17:59, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote: > >>> > In the last episode (Jun 28), Chris Rees said: > >>> >> Hi all, > >>> >> > >>> >> [crees@zeus]~% tail -n 2 /usr/ports/UIDs > >>> >> dbxml:*:949:949::0:0:dbXML user:/nonexistent:/sbin/nologin > >>> >> nobody:*:65534:65534::0:0:Unprivileged user:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin > >>> >> [crees@zeus]~% grep crees /etc/passwd > >>> >> crees:*:1001:1001:Chris Rees:/home/crees:/bin/tcsh > >>> >> chris:*:1001:1001:Chris Rees:/home/crees:/bin/tcsh > >>> >> [crees@zeus]~% > >>> >> > >>> >> I'm a little concerned at how close the ports UIDs are getting to the > >>> >> username space... > >>> > > >>> > There are only 216 entries in UIDs, though, so if people are just using > >>> > "last entry + 1" when adding new ones, they should probably start filling > >>> > the gaps instead. ?The 100s and 200s are pretty dense, but 350-399 only has > >>> > 5 entries, 400-499 has 4, 600-699 has 7, 700-799 has 3, etc. > >>> > > >>> > >>> Thank you for pointing that out (d'oh). > >>> > >>> However, perhaps we could still address the *potential* problems. To > >>> use one example, Debian has (as long as I can remember) used 10001 for > >>> the first username. When we have 65535 - 99 UIDs to play with, > >>> expansion like this isn't a problem. > >>> > >>> Could it be worth it? Think of ten years down the line. > >>> > >> > >> Best part would be to find every port that doesnt need a statically > >> allocated UID/GID and just dynamically allocate them after a certain > >> range '30000-50000' or whatever for ~20,000 ports and divide that > >> namespace up by category. > >> > >> > >> dbxml really does it really need to be static ? it just needs to run. > >> > >> Also: (stable/8) /usr/ports/UIDs > >> dbxml:*:945:945::0:0:& user:/nonexistent:/sbin/nologin > >> dbxml:*:949:949::0:0:dbXML user:/nonexistent:/sbin/nologin > >> > >> Which one of these are we planning on actually using here ? > >> > > > > Interesting... glewis added the second one. > > > > Greg, what did the pointyhat say? > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/UIDs.diff?r1=1.156;r2=1.155;f=h > > > > > Mystery solved. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/UIDs Yep, I forgot to commit my UIDs, GIDs changes with the update to dbXML, got the pointyhat email and then merged and committed without paying enough attention. Sorry about that. Thanks for removing the extra definition! -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110628203127.GA39023>