Pure LFS coreutils - I rest my case (temporarily :)

Erik-Jan ej.lfs at xs4all.nl
Thu Apr 24 16:16:15 PDT 2003

Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> I do have shadow installed. I suppose that should be standard?

Yep. But of course, lfs is your distro :))

> I would disagree for one reason, with a wuestion. At the time, has the
> new su been tested? 

No, it doesn't get tested at all, it is only used in the
fail-2eperm-test. Shadow-su (and all the other shadowprogs) doesn't get
tested at all, though.

> If not, what if it is broken and then causes the
> fail-2eprm test to fail. 

You can look at it this way: fail-2eperm tests rm and su

> This presumes that all versions of su accept the logname in the first
> position (is that a safe assumption?) and all parameters found after the
> logname are to be passed to the new shell. And we can apply your fix for
> the BASH_ENV issue.

I really don't know. How many sus are there in this world?

> Is this only good for the coreutils version? I suspect we will find it
If you pass -s /bin/sh to shadow-su, it uses /bin/sh as an interactive
login-shell. Not really what we want...

> Last, does this have any potential pitfalls if we are upgrading glibc?

Really don't know.

> I have some experience in C if you experience difficulty. Feel free to
> post me (off list would be best, I guess).
OK thanks, I will.

> In my final version, you'll see in the big logs that mysql didn't do
> anything. Several were skipped and the test automativcally selected user
> 'nobody', which is really what Ryan was shotting for anyway. So, it
> looked pretty good to me (keeping in mind I have some degree of
> ignorance on these things).
Yes, it did. But adding it gives you more of that 'I know exactly what
happens in every case'-feeling :))

> BTW, is your password file carrying the encrypted passwords? This is
> supposed to be less secure than the shadow password schema, IIRC. I
> wonder if the coreutils install will wipe out the su from shadow, and if
> so, will I be screwed?
No I use shadowing on my host and on my final lfs, like the rest of the
world. Only when building coreutils in ch6, shadow hasn't been installed

Nothing will be wiped: ch5 installs it in /stage1, ch6 installs it in
/usr/bin (which we move to /bin) but it is the first su in the chrooted
environment that gets installed. When we install shadow, the
coreutils-su will be replaced by the one shadow provides. (Which is a
good thing, I guess, because shadow-su for sure knows about shadowed
passwords and I don't know if the coreutils-su does)

So it seems we've sort of got this one finished (anyone for the test
that failed because of a missing perl expect package?)

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list