[distcc] A bug in distcc?

[Lisa Seelye]

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 23:44, Martin Pool wrote:
> I made one change in 2.11 which should improve this: lock and state
> files are now created with 666/777 permission, masked only by the
> user's umask.  So if you're lucky, having root use your distcc_dir
> will not necessarily break things.  However, on a machine with a tight
> umask, it is possible to have for example root end up owning
> ~mbp/.distcc.  I can't think of any good solution to that yet.

Cool.

With some changes to Portage (Gentoo bugs 29171 and 29313) functionality
to obtain the GCC version in a different way was added, along with the
creation of /var/tmp/portage/.distcc/{state,lock} automatically.

These portage changes are in 2.0.49-r6, on which distcc-2.11 now
depends.

Though, since -r6 will be in testing for a while the distcc changes will
likely make it easier to put [distcc] into arch before Portage.

As an aside, are there security implications of such wide permissions?

-- 
Regards,
-Lisa
<Vix ulla tam iniqua pax, quin bello vel aequissimo sit potior>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/distcc/attachments/20030924/29f34eb7/attachment.bin