Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Ansgar
Hi Simon, I think there are three aspects in your mail: the behavior of pam_limits, defaults for resource limits on legacy init systems and some discussion of sysvinit scripts that seems unrelated: 1. Resources limits set for a system service (e.g. sshd) might not be appropriate for a user ses

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 11:16:48 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > pam_limits also does some things that are unrelated to starting services, > such as setting up limits for interactive user sessions, and I think pure > systemd systems still rely on that? My understanding was that pam_limits is *only* fo

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon Richter writes: > Absolutely. The vast majority of users has no need for encrypted swap, > but might reasonably assume that secret keys are not written unencrypted > to disk, especially not in a way that is likely to leave them there for > weeks. That is not a reasonable assumption. If yo

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Ansgar
Simon Richter writes: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:30:30PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> It sounded like you were proposing that pam detect if systemd was pid1 >> and if so, then do what it does today otherwise inherit limits by >> default. > > PAM itself doesn't need to detect anything, the indiv

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon Richter writes: > The way I see it, we want a pam_systemd module that is responsible for > applying *all* settings configured in systemd units, and that is kept in > sync with the unit file parser, and the pam_limits module to handle the > non-systemd setups. My understanding is that if yo

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon McVittie writes: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 09:54:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Does this serve any useful purpose? > Honestly, probably not, but removing security hardening (however > dubious) is a regression, and if I remove it I'm sure there'll be a CVE > ID on the way shortly. I woul

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon Richter
Hi Russ, On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:54:56AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: [keyring managers using mlock] > Does this serve any useful purpose? Absolutely. The vast majority of users has no need for encrypted swap, but might reasonably assume that secret keys are not written unencrypted to disk, es

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon Richter
Hi Sam, On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 12:30:30PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > It sounded like you were proposing that pam detect if systemd was pid1 > and if so, then do what it does today otherwise inherit limits by > default. PAM itself doesn't need to detect anything, the individual modules are resp

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 09:54:56 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Simon McVittie writes: > > The wider context here is that gnome-keyring-daemon, GNOME's > > implementation of the org.freedesktop.Secrets interface, is currently > > setcap cap_ipc_lock=ep so that it can mlock(2) secrets and stop them >

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon McVittie writes: > The reason I ask about this is that I want to make sure we are setting > rlimits, and in particular RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, to a realistic value for > 2021. The wider context here is that gnome-keyring-daemon, GNOME's > implementation of the org.freedesktop.Secrets interface, is

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes: Simon> On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 11:49:25 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: >> > "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes: I'm >> assuming that the proposal is to change this for bookworm. Simon> I'm sorry, I don't have a concrete proposal, and I don't

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 11:49:25 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes: > I'm assuming that the proposal is to change this for bookworm. I'm sorry, I don't have a concrete proposal, and I don't understand which package is meant to be responsible for this well enough to

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Simon" == Simon McVittie writes: I'm assuming that the proposal is to change this for bookworm. It seems like it's too late in the process to change something like this for bullseye without more explicit and significant harm documented than you have given so far. Simon> Rationale: on

Re: Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 at 13:58:57 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > Rationale: on sysvinit or runit systems, pid 1 is very simple and is > unlikely to need to elevate any limits, but sysadmins are expected > to restart system services in an unpredictable execution environment > (certainly true for syste

Bug#981565: ITP: golang-github-inexio-go-monitoringplugin -- Golang package for writing monitoring check plugins for nagios, icinga2, zabbix, etc.

2021-02-01 Thread debian
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: deb...@thola.io * Package name: golang-github-inexio-go-monitoringplugin Version : 0.0~git20201117.ec06ef4-1 Upstream Author : inexio * URL : https://github.com/inexio/go-monitoringplugin * License : BSD-2-clause Program

Which package is responsible for setting rlimits?

2021-02-01 Thread Simon McVittie
A recent regression in gnome-keyring (perhaps only on systems that use dbus-x11, it isn't completely clear to me yet) has prompted me to look at how rlimits work in Debian. It isn't clear to me which package is or should be responsible for choosing what arbitrary limits we use in practice. The ker

Videoconference tomorrow, Tuesday 2021-02-02 18:00 UTC (Was: For those who want to keep on contributing (Was: Debian @ COVID-19 Biohackathon (April 5-11, 2020))

2021-02-01 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, this is the call for the nect video conference of the Debian Med team that are an established means to continue the COVID-19 hackathon in April[1] and we do it twice per month on every 2th and 17th of a month. So the next meeting is tomorrow 18:00 UTC For those who would like to join