From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 10 19:51:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3250E16A4CE; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:51:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0233943D53; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:51:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0AJreF1027525; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:53:40 -0800 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id j0AJrevB027524; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:53:40 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:53:40 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Eric Anholt Message-ID: <20050110195340.GC15907@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <1105321614.8452.54.camel@leguin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1SQmhf2mF2YjsYvc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1105321614.8452.54.camel@leguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: x11 /tmp preparation rc.d script X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:51:08 -0000 --1SQmhf2mF2YjsYvc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 05:46:54PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > Attached are my proposed patches to deal with the X11 ICE issue. To > review, it's required because having .ICE not owned by root is a > security issue, one that's been papered over with a printed warning and > sleep(5) in libICE for years, and has recently been changed into an > actual error by the X.Org folks. >=20 > The question is whether to stick it in base or in ports: >=20 > In favor of ports: > - Seems like the proper place. Nothing happens for non-X11 users. > In favor of base: > - Would either need to make a separate port just for the script, or > keep the script in at least 3 separate ports, disregarding the > cleanup of servers which might make for more ports affected. > - From ports, it might get started too late in the boot process, or > not at all in some installations. It turns out that doing it in localpkg isn't a problem so we might want to go ahead and do it that way. One thing I've been wondering about is, why isn't startx/xdm doing this creation? They have the required privs and are garenteed not to get in a race (since it would be with them selves). -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --1SQmhf2mF2YjsYvc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB4t1DXY6L6fI4GtQRAhPZAJ4nVJjL/SsPcSl4BUPZsjc0wBvm8gCdERT5 xvctx2Be+0fJrBdp4Hydm0s= =K3xm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1SQmhf2mF2YjsYvc--