From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon May 8 13:42:13 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76506D62A72 for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 13:42:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F13DE29C for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 13:42:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1d7ivL-000A7s-Mg; Mon, 08 May 2017 16:42:03 +0300 Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 16:42:03 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Rick Macklem Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: more default uid/gid for NFS in mountd Message-ID: <20170508134203.GA3165@zxy.spb.ru> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 13:42:13 -0000 On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 11:45:46AM +0000, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi, > > Five years ago (yea, it slipped through a crack;-), Slawa reported that files > created by root would end up owned by uid 2**32-2 (-2 as uint32_t). > This happens if there is no "-maproot=" in the /etc/exports line. > > The cause is obvious. The value is set to -2 by default. > > The question is... Should this be changed to 65534 (ie "nobody")? > - It would seem more consistent to make it the uid of nobody, but I can also see > the argument that since it has been like this *forever*, that changing it would be > a POLA violation. > What do others think? IMHO uid 2**32-2 is POLA violation. Nobody expect this uid. Too much number. This is like bug. > It is also the case that mountd.c doesn't look "nobody" up in the password database > to set the default. It would be nice to do this, but it could result in the mountd daemon > getting "stuck" during a boot waiting for an unresponsive LDAP service or similar. > Does doing this sound like a good idea? This is (stuck at boot) already do for case of using NIS and nfsuserd. I am regular see this for case of DNS failed at boot. You offer don't impair current behaviour. Thanks! > Thanks for any comments, rick > ps: Here's the original email thread, in case you are interested: > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2012-March/066868.html >