[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: what program sets up /run/user/1000/ ?



Hi,

songbird wrote:
>  some strange fs entry shows up:
> # ls -l /run/user/1000
> d????????? ? ?  ?    ?            ? doc

We had this topic a few day ago.
  https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2021/06/msg00020.html

I had some further private conversation with the OP John Conover which
causes me to summarize the problem like this:

xdg-document-portal from package xdg-desktop-portal creates a FUSE mount
point as "portal" for offering selected files to the user with the giveni
id number (here: 1000).
  https://flatpak.github.io/xdg-desktop-portal/portal-docs.html#gdbus-org.freedesktop.portal.Documents
states
 "The document portal allows to make files from the outside world
  available to sandboxed applications in a controlled way.
  Exported files will be made accessible to the application via a fuse
  filesystem that gets mounted at /run/user/$UID/doc/."

Control is obviously to be done via systemd means. Probably by
  /usr/lib/systemd/user/xdg-document-portal.service
as mentioned in
  https://packages.debian.org/buster/amd64/xdg-desktop-portal/filelist

It is the normal behavior of a FUSE mount point to deny any access to any
other user including the superuser. See
  https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse
  "Security implications"
which says
  "No other user (including root) can access the contents of the mounted
   filesystem (though this can be relaxed by allowing the use of the
   allow_other and allow_root mount options in /etc/fuse.conf)"

Reason is probably that the kernel hands over its internal VFS calls to
the FUSE driver program in userspace, which is then able to answer
with arbitrary deception to the caller of the corresponding libc function.
An old superuser might not expect to be served by code that did not go
through kernel development scrutiny.

Relaxing this security precaution (as mentioned in above quote) might be
a bad idea.
I would rather disable xdg-document-portal in order to redice the risk
rather than increasing it.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas


Reply to: