On 05/17/2010 10:49 AM, Harald Braumann wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:14:28AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: >> On 05/17/2010 10:02 AM, Harald Braumann wrote: >>> - you could have a UPG system but a mismatch of IDs -> wrong umask >> >> ID numbers, yes. ID names, no. If the user name maches the group name, >> IE: aaron = aaron, then the user matches the private group. If the match >> is not made, then umask 0022 should be in play. > > from pam_umask's description of the usergroups option: > > If the user is not root, and the user ID is equal to the group ID, *and* > the username is the same as primary group name, the umask group bits > are set to be the same as owner bits (examples: 022 -> 002, 077 -> > 007). > > So if there is a mismatch of *either*, name or ID, then pam_umasks > detects a non-UPG system, while it might very well be all UPG. A bug in pam_umask.so that needs to be addressed (which I believe we've already started addressing in this thread). > Also, > just because Debian's adduser happens to give the same name to the > user as well as to his private group, this is not necessarily true in > all system. You could have group names that are prefixed with "grp", > or whatever, but still have a perfectly valid UPG system. Can you produce a valid example? The definition of UPG is to create a group name that is the same as the username. If the system in question is using UPG, then there won't be any conflicts, unless the admiinstrator tries creating a "adm" user, or something equally as unsound. >> If the username matches the group name, then you have a UPG system. > > And on what assumptions do you base this conclusion? This is how UPG works. A new user is added to the system, and a group of the same name is also added to the system. This is fundamental to UPG. >> Unless you created a user called "devel" and put him in the "devel" >> group. Debian is not substitute for stupidity. > > How is that stupid? Users and groups are completely seperate name > spaces, so why would I care in a non-UPG system? If you're using a non-UPG system, then you don't care. Debian is UPG-based, so your argument is invalid. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature