[OE-core] host-user-contaminated QA check

[Patrick Ohly]

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 18:49 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
> writes:
> 
> > Recently the host-user-contaminated QA check triggered for the trousers
> > recipe in meta-security:
> >
> > WARNING: trousers-0.3.14+gitAUTOINC+4b9a70d578-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: trousers: /trousers/etc/tcsd.conf is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due to host contamination [host-user-contaminated]
> >
> > However, that's a false positive in this case. UID 1000 got assigned to
> > the "tss" user in the target sysroot during the build, and tcsd.conf is
> > correctly and intentionally owned by that user because tcsd checks
> > ownership and refuses to start when owned by someone else (including
> > root). It just happened that the UID was the same.
> >
> > This is likely to affect all recipes with files owned by dynamically
> > created users, in particular when the host system assigns UIDs from the
> > same range as the target system (quick poll: who else has 1000 as his
> > UID on his main Linux box? ;-)
> 
> Usually, this can not happen.  There is reserved a range for dynamically
> created users (standard says 100-499, some distributions use 100-999).
> 
> In this case, there is probably some '--system' flag missing when the
> 'tss' user is created (--> packaging bug).

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that.

In that case the QA check has found a real problem, albeit reported it
in a way that it wasn't obvious what was going on - probably the message
should get extended. I therefore retract my earlier proposal.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.