User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 12, 2017 17:41 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
In reply to: User=0day considered harmful in systemd by dskoll
Parent article: User=0day considered harmful in systemd

OK, I read some more context and it seems to me he was talking about the strict username rules rather than treating 0day as root. So it makes more sense and I retract most of my previous comment, though I still think playing the "it's free so you can change it" card is a bit of a copout.

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 12, 2017 18:00 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

Systemd is intended to be consumed by people designing operating systems. So it's expected that they should understand the software they are working with as well as be willing and able to make modifications when necessary It's a upstream project intended to be consumed by experts. If end users get burned by a systemd default it's at least partially the distribution's fault for not taking the time to configure it correctly for the users.

What we have here, at least in some ways, is a balancing act between the need for secure defaults and the need to have service files not only be backward compatible, but compatible between different distributions.

I think the solution to this problem may actually be a sort of 'systemd-lint' program. Something you can run that will check your service files for bogus lines, bad users, and other common pitfalls. There are multiple places that you can find configurations for any single service definition and requiring visual inspection of the code for correctness is really just setting up users and system administrators to fail.

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 12, 2017 18:39 UTC (Wed) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link] (1 responses)

Regarding last paragraph of your reply, systemd-verify exists. Maybe it needs to be extended to check if rvalues are correct – https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-...

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 12, 2017 20:23 UTC (Wed) by zuki (subscriber, #41808) [Link]

Of course it checks that rvalues are correct ;)

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 13, 2017 0:21 UTC (Thu) by firstyear (subscriber, #89081) [Link] (2 responses)

I think the response is still an issue. Just because it's open, and I can modify it, doesn't mean my changes will be accepted. Either I need to push the patch uphill to get it accepted (and in this case, with an upstream that "disagrees" with the concept), or I now need to carry the patch and maintain it potentially indefinitely. Both are bad situations.

This response is a massive copout, it gives the appearance of open source without having to actually be open in your work flows or attitude.

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 14, 2017 10:59 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] (1 responses)

As a distributor, you can ship a systemd modified according to your tastes and opinions. As a user you can run a systemd modified to your tastes and opinions.

What makes you think that software is only free if you can impse your opinions and tastes on the original authors?

User=0day considered harmful in systemd

Posted Jul 14, 2017 14:17 UTC (Fri) by phred14 (guest, #60633) [Link]

Seems to me that there is a difference between configuring upstream to fit your wishes and rules, and patching upstream for that same purpose. Having no idea of how stable systemd code is between releases, I have no idea how often such a "policy patch" might tend to break, requiring further manual action rather than something simply scripted. Certainly if such a policy issue were configurable it would be better for everyone.