Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 214547 - sys-process/vixie-cron: Inconsistency of cron related group handling
Summary: sys-process/vixie-cron: Inconsistency of cron related group handling
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Deadline: 2019-10-11
Assignee: No maintainer - Look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers if you want to take care of it
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: PMASKED
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-03-24 16:29 UTC by Zhang Le (RETIRED)
Modified: 2019-10-11 15:08 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Zhang Le (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-03-24 16:29:14 UTC
vixie-cron-4.1-r10.ebuild introduced a new group "crontab" to system.
To my understanding, its purpose is let normal user to create its own crontab. While the cron group is used by cron daemon.

However, after looked at other crons in tree, I found only vixie-cron-4.1-r10.ebuild is using crontab group. Shall we make it consistent across all cron implementations? Either make other crons to use crontab group too, or just use cron group for these two purposes like what we did in the past.

If we choose the former solution, we also need to update cron-guide.xml.

Thanks!
Comment 1 Zhang Le (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-03-31 05:41:59 UTC
Please say something.
Which way to go. Leave the current status as it is, or make all cron daemon use two groups, or make all cron daemon use just cron group.
We need to make a decision, then update documentation accordingly.
Thanks!
Comment 2 Thilo Bangert (RETIRED) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-03-31 06:02:36 UTC
the introduction of the crontab group has been a uncoordinated effort by the vixie-cron maintainer (i guess)....

i dont know exactly how you expect the other cron maintainers to react to it.
in order to react to it, it would be nice to hear the rationale for creating the group in the first place - second hand guessing as to why that 'feature' was introduced does not get me anywhere.

unfortunately -r10 is already stable, otherwise i would have called for p.masking it...
Comment 3 Zhang Le (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-03-31 20:59:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> i dont know exactly how you expect the other cron maintainers to react to it.
> in order to react to it, it would be nice to hear the rationale for creating
> the group in the first place

Exactly.
Actually I don't have any strong preference over any of those solutions I've proposed. However, I think maybe it'll be better that all the cron implementations conform to the same rule, ie. either all separate crontab group from cron group or all use just one cron group.

Comment 4 Wolfram Schlich (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-04-02 17:02:57 UTC
JFYI, fcron for example doesn't use the cron group thingy at all, as
it has a different security model -- it's using its own user and group fcron
for a different reason though (least privilege principle).
Comment 5 Zhang Le (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-04-02 18:18:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> JFYI, fcron for example doesn't use the cron group thingy at all, as
> it has a different security model -- it's using its own user and group fcron
> for a different reason though (least privilege principle).

Thanks for sharing this.
Comment 6 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2008-04-20 09:44:11 UTC
until we know why the normal 'cron' group isnt good enough for vixie-cron, we cant really make a decision.  dcron only needs 1 crontab group and it uses the standard 'cron' like it should.
Comment 7 Thilo Bangert (RETIRED) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-06-26 10:06:52 UTC
falco: it appears, you added the crontab group stuff. could you please explain yourself? thanks...
Comment 8 Thilo Bangert (RETIRED) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2008-10-06 14:12:35 UTC
falco? i guess, we'll revert the stuff then?!
Comment 9 Chris Gianelloni 2009-08-31 20:39:34 UTC
Can we get some movement on this, even if it is just to assign it to QA to make a decision?  This is a very small change to be done, if reverting, so there's really no excuse for it to sit around for nearly a year with 0 activity.
Comment 10 Raphael Marichez (Falco) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2009-09-06 22:10:34 UTC
Hi,

sorry for not having noticed this bug. :)

the root reason is https://bugs.gentoo.org/164466. The new "crontab" group is the group under /usr/bin/crontab is to be executed (SGID). With the ancient behaviour, /usr/bin/crontab was SUID, which was unnecessary. This choice (SGID versus SUID) is inspired by Debian and other distros. On Gentoo, the "cron" group, which has not the same meaning, has been existing long before me. If it is possible to merge the "cron" and "crontab" group into one single group, then i'm OK for sure.

BTW "severity=major" looks a little strong for that entry :)
Comment 11 Michał Górny archtester Gentoo Infrastructure gentoo-dev Security 2019-10-11 15:08:00 UTC
Package removed.