Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:11:54 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: jhell <jhell@dataix.net>, Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Subject: Re: Default value for UIDs Message-ID: <BANLkTimcfLkDEb2%2Bg=sLH-KUo4rKck7htg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP107CCB5B4727769D3BD978DA9560@phx.gbl> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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/n= ologin >>> >> [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 th= e >>> >> username space... >>> > >>> > There are only 216 entries in UIDs, though, so if people are just usi= ng >>> > "last entry + 1" when adding new ones, they should probably start fil= ling >>> > the gaps instead. =A0The 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=3D1.156;r2=3D1.1= 55;f=3Dh > Mystery solved. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/UIDs Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTimcfLkDEb2%2Bg=sLH-KUo4rKck7htg>