Re: Another system management tool to disappear.
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:30:58 -0400
> Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 29 August 2015 10:39:07 Reco wrote:
>>
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:49:55 -0400
>> >
>> > Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> wrote:
>> > > > > If su goes away, IMNSHO, it will be such a PITA that it will
>> > > > > encourage far more people to just give up and run their machines
>> > > > > as root full time. And I don't believe for a millisecond that
>> > > > > is the effect intended.
>> > > >
>> > > > They provide some systemd-specific kludge instead of su. So it's
>> > > > not that bad.
>> > >
>> > > I don't recall recognizing that being discussed yet.
>> >
>> > Please read the bugreport. It's all there.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/825
>> >
>> > > > And, given the current systemd adoption rate in Debian, I'd say
>> > > > that we, stable users, have 3-4 years before that "machinectl
>> > > > login" thing will be available to us.
>> > > >
>> > > > > So, if su goes away, how do I accomplish those tasks in a
>> > > > > suitable manner that will not bore a hole in the user sandbox?
>> > > >
>> > > > If it comes to this (i.e 'su' will go away) - I just use busybox
>> > > > (which has perfectly working implementation of su without the
>> > > > fancy bits). I.e.
>> > > >
>> > > > busybox su -
>> > >
>> > > Command not found. Wheezy 32 bit install.
>> >
>> > Obviously for this command to work it's required to install busybox.
>> > I'd recommend busybox-static package.
>> >
>> > Reco
>>
>> Installed it, suid problems:
>>
>> gene@coyote:~$ busybox su amanda
>> su: must be suid to work properly
>> gene@coyote:~$ busybox su -
>> su: must be suid to work properly
>>
>> Is it still finding the system su first?
>
> No. The 'problem' is exactly what it tolds. Meaning:
>
> 1) "Original" su is suid root-owned binary:
>
> $ ls -la /bin/su
> -rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 40168 Nov 21 2014 /bin/su
>
> 2) Busybox, on the other hand - is not:
>
> $ ls -la /bin/busybox
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1837008 Feb 19 2015 /bin/busybox
>
>
> So, *root*-invoked "busybox su" should behave exactly like original
> "su". Everyone other than root are told to get lost.
>
> Note that:
>
> 1) Setting suid bit on busybox is *extremely* bad idea. Don't do it
> ever do it (as busybox provides *much* more than su).
>
> 2) Your way of using su you've described should not be affected by this
> little inconvinience as you become root first, and do su second.
Being curious, myself, about this question, I did a web search on
"suid busybox" and found this interesting tidbit:
http://www.softforge.de/bb/suid.html
which refers one compile-time configuration, and to a convenient
configuration file:
/etc/busybox.conf
I would assume that, if you have installed busybox, you would have man
pages that explain this, as well. But I don't have a debian system
booted to check, at the moment, sorry. After a search on the web,
maybe it is not easy to find in the man pages, after all.
I must say, my personal impression of busybox has always been that I
would rather simply have enough persistent storage to have a proper
userland -- that it would be indicated only on embedded stuff where
flash RAM and other persistent storage is extremely limited for some
reason or other.
Curt seems to be using it in other ways -- which might be interesting
to hear more about?
--
Joel Rees
Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
Reply to: