On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 03:51:55PM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 01:41:52PM +1300, Mark van Walraven wrote: > > > > If I didn't have important reason to get the system up quickly, I'd just > > work away in single-user mode. If /var/tmp is only writeable by root, > > some critical applications won't work properly. > > bzzzt. thanks for playing. single-user mode has only one user > remember, and that user is root, who can write anything.
The context was a system brought up in to multi-user mode without /var/tmp mounted. I wouldn't do that without an important reason, like perhaps a thousand users screaming for a critical application. But if /var/tmp is now writeable only by root, the critical application may well malfunction. > > Well, /home and /usr/local have a similar problem, but I hadn't noticed > > them until now. But that has a much lower impact, unlike the /var/tmp > > problem, which I discovered early one morning when it bit me in the arse. > > oh now /home and /usr/local are supposed to be world writable? similar, adj. Looking or being almost, but not exactly, the same. [Cambridge International Dictionary of English] The ownership and permissions of the /home and /usr/local mountpoints by dbootstrap should match those of the filesystems mounted on them. That's how they are almost the same. They should not be world writable. That's how they are not exactly the same. I assumed you would realise that. > > Provided the default permissions are sensible. The ones created by > > dbootstrap for /var/tmp are not. > > i have yet to see any proof of this. I don't believe you ever will see it. Mark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
