Samuel Thibault, le Thu 02 Sep 2010 01:00:14 +0200, a écrit :
> Jeremie Koenig, le Wed 01 Sep 2010 13:04:33 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 01:06:32AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > { "anonymous-owner", 'a', "USER", 0,
> > > > "Make USER the owner of files related to processes without one.
> > > > "
> > > > "Be aware that USER will be granted access to the environment
> > > > and "
> > > > "other sensitive information about the processes in question. "
> > > > "(default: use uid 0)" },
> > >
> > > Which use do you envision?
> >
> > You may want to add an entry to /etc/passwd (say, "noone"), used only to
> > distinguish the anonymous processes from those owned by root, though as
> > the comment suggests you would have to be careful not to use it for
> > anything else.
>
> Ah, so it's really not like "nobody", that's for tasks whose owner is
> yet unknown, but potentially root-owned or such, or something like this?
>
> I don't know exactly the rules, but I feel like (uid_t) -1 might be
> exactly what we need here.
I don't find anything giving me assurance of this, so I guess making it
an option that defaults to 0 should be fine for now. You should however
probably rephrase: rather than "anonymous-owner", which could be
understood as "anybody can read it, that's fine", it should probably be
called for instance "unknown-user", as it belongs to somebody, we just
don't know whom.
Samuel
