headers
Andy Shevchenko | 3 Oct 2008 14:29
Picon
Gravatar

chown placement

Hello.

Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead of /bin?

--

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Steven M. Bellovin | 3 Oct 2008 15:19

Re: chown placement

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:29:40 +0300
"Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead
> of /bin?
> 
It's there because it's mostly useless unless you're root.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Takahiro Kambe | 3 Oct 2008 16:01
Gravatar

Re: chown placement

Hi,

In message <5ec8ebd50810030529k77a47793ya063c5ed8f9b141d <at> mail.gmail.com>
	on Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:29:40 +0300,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead of /bin?
Which do you mention chmod or chown?  Subject said "chown" but your
mail's paragraph said "chmod".

Best regards.

--

-- 
Takahiro Kambe <taca <at> back-street.net>
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Andy Shevchenko | 3 Oct 2008 16:06
Picon
Gravatar

Re: chown placement

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Takahiro Kambe <taca <at> back-street.net> wrote:
>> Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead of /bin?
> Which do you mention chmod or chown?  Subject said "chown" but your
> mail's paragraph said "chmod".
chown.

--

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Martin S. Weber | 3 Oct 2008 16:20
Picon

Re: chown placement

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:06:39PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Takahiro Kambe <taca <at> back-street.net> wrote:
> >> Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead of /bin?
> > Which do you mention chmod or chown?  Subject said "chown" but your
> > mail's paragraph said "chmod".
> chown.

Oh.

One more thing, about the sbins not being part of the path (part of private
conv), I just realized that
 - /etc/skel/.profile is including the sbins for the paths
 - PATH=$(sysctl -n user.cs_path) is a good path to start with and it includes
   the sbins

-Martin
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Andy Shevchenko | 3 Oct 2008 16:21
Picon
Gravatar

Re: chown placement

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin S. Weber <Ephaeton <at> gmx.net> wrote:
>> > Given that
>> >  "The ownership of a file may only be altered by a super-user for obvious
>> >  security reasons."
>> A minor inconvenience to have this useful tool under directory which
>> doesn't included to PATH.
> Yeah but what's the problem in having PATH include /usr/sbin?
By default? It isn't a good solution, I think.

>> F.e. you have configuration script which you can and may be want to
>> run under non-privileged user, but script still needs to find chown
>> placement (assume it is under current PATH).
> A minor language thing. For example is abbreviated "e.g." back to the point...
>
> There's a lot of binaries that you can run as a normal user which reside
> in either /sbin or /usr/sbin (think ifconfig -a, a perfectly valid use
> even as non-root user). So the first thing I do on all my machines is
> to have the path be something like
> ~/bin {,/usr,/usr/pkg}/{,s}/bin /usr/games
>
> Maybe you should instead suggest the default path to include all
> directories which contain executables usable as a normal user, that
> is /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin/ /usr/pkg/bin /usr/pkg/sbin /usr/games
I don't agree with /usr/sbin and /sbin, but others are ok.

>> > I can understand the sbin over bin part ... /usr I don't know. It's not
>> > that integral to have (for root) ?
>> Actually, what I'm wondering why...
>
> I think it's because of the intended use of chown. It's a system manager's
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Glen R. J. Neff | 3 Oct 2008 23:36

IPv6 support for yp/NIS

I find myself in one hell of a conundrum. I need an NIS server that
supports IPv6.

I initially tried with FreeBSD but found that every piece of the yp
suite supported IPv6 except ypserv.

Then someone told me that NetBSD's ypserv supported it, so I gave it a
try, and they're right, it does!  But you know what, in the case of
NetBSD, every piece of the yp suite supports IPv6 except ypbind. 

This is maddening! How can both of these projects have non-overlapping
holes in their yp suites like this?

Here's some console & sockstat output to show what I'm talking about:

http://pastebin.ca/1218428

Thanks,
-G

--

-- 
/*
 * Glen R. J. Neff
 * RTP TSG Network Team
 * neff_glen <at> emc.com
 *
 * EMC^2 == E^2
 */
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
David Holland | 4 Oct 2008 06:06
Picon

Re: chown placement

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 10:20:15AM -0400, Martin S. Weber wrote:
 > One more thing, about the sbins not being part of the path (part of private
 > conv), I just realized that
 >  - /etc/skel/.profile is including the sbins for the paths
 >  - PATH=$(sysctl -n user.cs_path) is a good path to start with and
 >    it includes the sbins

% sysctl -n user.cs_path
/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/pkg/bin:/usr/pkg/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin

So, is there some reason the dirs are in the wrong order? Or is this a
subject for holy war and I should shut up?

--

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland <at> netbsd.org
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Martin S. Weber | 4 Oct 2008 02:13
Picon

Re: chown placement

On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 04:06:00AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> % sysctl -n user.cs_path
> /usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/pkg/bin:/usr/pkg/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/sbin
> 
> So, is there some reason the dirs are in the wrong order? Or is this a
> subject for holy war and I should shut up?

Not a holy war but with the pkg_install-renovation stuff probably the
 /usr/pkg/ paths should be before the / and /usr ones? 
Or at least I remember some crusade around that..

Holy wars rule!

-Martin
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Takahiro Kambe | 4 Oct 2008 06:26
Gravatar

Re: chown placement

In message <5ec8ebd50810030706o7b6bf6ddxa6a91cbfed385a27 <at> mail.gmail.com>
	on Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:06:39 +0300,
	"Andy Shevchenko" <andy.shevchenko <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Takahiro Kambe <taca <at> back-street.net> wrote:
> >> Is there some advantages to have chmod under /usr/sbin instead of /bin?
> > Which do you mention chmod or chown?  Subject said "chown" but your
> > mail's paragraph said "chmod".
> chown.
Then, why you want to place to /bin a command which can be executed by
super user only?

--

-- 
Takahiro Kambe <taca <at> back-street.net>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane