[OE-core] Directory permissions and ownership -- RFC

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 14:12 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 6/21/11 1:57 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:43 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> Adjust the umask to 022.  This resolves the problem of dynamically generated
> >> directories (mkdir -p) and specific files (touch foo) having odd permissions.
> >>
> >> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=mhatle/perms&id=d8470b6a8efdbba04cef5d4dc1ce12720fe83621
> > 
> > Are you confident that this isn't going to break anything like
> > group-shared DL_DIRs?  I'm not entirely thrilled about forcing the umask
> > to 022 for everything that bitbake does, although I can see that making
> > it be so for particular tasks like do_install() might have some merit.
> > Even in the latter case, though, I wonder whether we should just be
> > paying more attention to recipe hygiene and using "install -m ..." with
> > the permissions that we actually want.
> 
> This is why I bring this up.. I'm a bit concerned that doing it generally will
> have unintended consequences.  So far I am not aware of any.  Moving it to a
> different place in the process may be better.  The only issue I've found so far
> is that just coding int into "do_install" really isn't an option.  Between the
> custom do_install components, various classes, etc.. it's difficult in the
> current infrastructure to find a centralized location to set the value.
> 
> (I'd love to be corrected if someone things of another way of doing it.)  The
> setting of the umask is a very low cost operation, so doing it for certain steps
> shouldn't cause a performance penalty... but until we figure that out this is
> the best and easiest solution I've come up with.

How about a umask flag for tasks?

If bitbake sees it for a given task it would set the umask as indicated
for the task. Cheap and easy and would only impact do_install tasks...

Cheers,

Richard