Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:48:52 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: www/nginx pkg-plist + pkgng (detectable?) Message-ID: <CADLo83-W%2BitL818qJ01isNWduVfJ5WSir37OszcVqoAVZGpeqQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130413220152.51ef2cb3@bsd64.grem.de> References: <20130330034028.0f8cefc8@bsd64.grem.de> <5156C0D9.50909@FreeBSD.org> <20130330142320.38010126@bsd64.grem.de> <20130408103118.67ea695a@bsd64.grem.de> <CADLo838OFhmA6AQNuHPjP=Kfw9Co9vWh3XqxrFkEH-dgb81pzA@mail.gmail.com> <20130409205950.677a6812@bsd64.grem.de> <20130410061331.GA74304@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <CADLo839mvnemkWaKz4wbHZChQWSj0%2BtVgBOwTLuW12mGf0Of2g@mail.gmail.com> <20130410135632.0971caef@bsd64.grem.de> <20130413220152.51ef2cb3@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 April 2013 21:01, Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:56:32 +0200 > Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:02:29 +0100 >> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 10 April 2013 07:13, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:59:50PM +0200, Michael Gmelin wrote: >> > >> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 19:43:15 +0100 >> > >> Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > No, it's a bug in pkgng; it should respect @cwd. >> > >> > >> > > >> > > No it is not. >> > > >> > > While i agree with pkgng that should repect @cwd (it surely does) >> > > >> > > There is nothing written anywhere that will waranty you that the >> > > @exec line will be parsed in order ro prepend @cwd path to a path >> > > you provide. the only thing doing that is %D. >> > > >> > > A user MUST add %D and have complete path in @exec lines >> > > >> > > In fact in that case it works by chance becauce of how pkg_install >> > > treat plist. >> > >> > Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "current working directory"? >> > >> > When mkdir is called, it should create the directory in @cwd. >> > pkg_install's behaviour is correct here, and pkgng's is not. >> > >> > Chris >> >> pkg_create(1) says: >> >> @cwd [directory] >> Set the internal directory pointer to point to directory. >> All subsequent *filenames* will be assumed relative to >> this directory. If no directory argument is given, it will set >> the internal directory pointer to the first prefix value. >> Note: @cd is also an alias for this command. >> >> but as far as the package manager is concerned, www/nginx-dist is an >> argument to mkdir in the exec call (@exec mkdir -p -m 755 >> www/nginx-dist) and not a filename. >> >> Also the porters handbook uses %D in all its examples, but offers no >> explicit explanation. >> >> That said, the way pkg_add is implemented, it changes to directories >> as a side effect of using its PUSHOUT macro in >> usr.sbin/pkg_install/add/extract.c (I only glanced at that, but that >> seems to be the reason why this is happening). So commands get >> executed within `pwd` == @cwd. >> >> So there is definitely a backwards compatibility problem for the sheer >> reason of that "it worked before". I don't thing pkg should adopt this >> behavior (it seems like a bad idea long term), but it should detect it >> somehow. A simple approach to detect this could be chdiring >> to /var/empty in pkg before executing the call so it will fail in case >> the path used within @exec is relative. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> > > So what now? Is anybody looking into this? Should I open a PR for nginx > and supply a patch that fixes this (theoretically it should be applied > despite the port freeze, since it's a build problem). Please do open a PR if you haven't already. > Regarding pkgng: Will anybody consider implementing automatic checks to > prevent something like this from happening (e.g. the simplistic > approach I suggested). Even if the files wouldn't be left behind, the > fact that something gets touched in pwd is really bad - as an admin it > should be safe to assume that I can start pkg from any directory > without altering it state (and be it temporarily). I think a patch to portlint wouldn't go amiss. Feel up to the challenge? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-W%2BitL818qJ01isNWduVfJ5WSir37OszcVqoAVZGpeqQ>