6 ms·
They just would have had to think "let’s do the safe thing — instead of just assuming everything goes well and potentially using the root user as fallback if we
by ArneBab 9y ago
They just would have had to think "let’s do the safe thing — instead of just assuming everything goes well and potentially using the root user as fallback if we’re wrong".
It’s a mindset/philosophy problem, and that doesn’t change when bugs get fixed. It would require the devs to change, but that didn’t happen in the past decade, so we cannot just assume that it will happen in the next.
- db48x 9y agoBut you have to be root to install a systemd unit in the first place...
- falcolas 9y agoThere are also user-level unit files; can this bug be triggered by those? EDIT: No; it acts as if the 'User=' directive doesn't exist.
- digi_owl 9y agoAnd? What is going on here is that an admin thinks he has shored up the service defined in the service file, because hey, it runs. Only to later have the server 0wned because apparently it was running as root the whole time...
- CodeWriter23 9y agoDoesn't mean I want systemd silently escalating my process to root when I think I've told it to contain privileges of the process to a specific userid. Clearly the correct behavior for such a program is to throw an error if it is rejecting a username for ANY reason, even when that reason is supported by stilted reasoning.
- chronid 9y agoBreaking expectations is not a reasonable default.