Subject: [bug#54309] What is the process from here?

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 21:06:32 +0100

Am Dienstag, dem 22.03.2022 um 17:50 +0100 schrieb fesoj000:
> On 3/20/22 12:09 AM, Maxime Devos wrote:
> > Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 18-03-2022 om 23:36 [+0100]:
> > > > +(define (auditd-activation config)
> > > > +  (with-imported-modules '((guix build utils))
> > > > +    #~(begin
> > > > +        (use-modules (guix build utils))
> > > > +        (let ((var-log-audit "/var/log/audit"))
> > > > +          (umask #o077)
> > > > +          (mkdir-p var-log-audit)))))
> > > > +
> > > This would also apply umask 077 to /var and /var/log if those
> > > don't already exist.  More importantly, code executed after that
> > > will also inherit the umask, which I don't think is the intended
> > > consequence.
> > 
> > More concretely, the procedure 'mkdir-p/perms' would address the
> > umask issue, but not the potential ‘oops too restrictive
> > permissions for /var and /var/log' issue.
> Ok, i can assume that a future version of 'mkdir-p/perms' will handle
> the umask.
> 
> Should the activation now handle potential permission problems from
> past activations and auditd starts? Can you try to explain in more
> detail please?
My personal solution would be to use (mkdir-p "/var/log") followed by
(mkdir "/var/log/audit" #o700).

Cheers