linux-ext4 - Re: How to package e2scrub

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 11:30:32 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
Subject: Re: How to package e2scrub

On Fri 31-05-19 10:10:19, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:07:13PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 30-05-19 09:51:55, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:59:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Yeah, my plan is to just not package cron bits at all since openSUSE / SLES
> > > > support only systemd init anyway these days (and in fact our distro people
> > > > want to deprecate cron in favor of systemd). I guess I'll split off the
> > > > scrub bits into a separate sub-package (likely e2fsprogs will suggest
> > > > installation of this sub-package) and the service will be disabled by
> > > > default.
> > > 
> > > I'm not super-fond of extra sub-packages for their own sake, and the
> > > extra e2scrub bits are small enough (about 32k?) that I don't believe
> > > it justifies an extra sub-package; but that's a distribution-level
> > > packaging decision, so it's certainly fine if we're not completely aligned.
> > 
> > Yes, size is not a big concern but the scrub bits require util-linux, lvm,
> > and mailer to work correctly and I don't want to add these dependencies to
> > stock e2fsprogs package because some minimal installations do not want e.g.
> > lvm at all. Granted these are just scripts so I could get away with not
> > requiring e.g. lvm at all but it seems user-unfriendly to leave it up to
> > user to determine that his systemd-service fails due to missing packages.
> 
> So you're using an extra package to force the installation of the
> necessary prerequisite packages, instead of the current approach where
> we don't require them, but we just skip running the scrub if lvm and
> util-linux are not present.  I think both approaches makes sense.
> 
> It's also a good point that we need to handle the case of a missing
> sendmail intelligently.  It looks like we currently skip sending mail
> at all in the cron case, and in the case systemd case, we'll spew a
> warning (which won't get mailed since there's no sendmail, but it does
> mean some extra lines in the logfile).  All of this being said, it's
> not _completely_ useless to scrub without an mailer; we still mark the
> file system as needing to be checked on the next boot.  But it's
> another argument that we shouldn't enable the service by default.
> 
> For that reason, I'm not sure I'd want to force the installation of a
> mailer, since someone might want to run e2scrub by hand, and
> e2scrub_all every week w/o isn't a completely insane thing.  But we
> certainly should handle that case gracefully.

Yeah, if the scripts can handle missing mailer and do something useful in
that case, I think I will switch the RPM dependency on postfix to just
Recommends and not Requires.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR