[smokeping-users] [BUG] setting umask for new RRD files

[Thomas Lobker]

Tobias, thank you for your support so far!

I agree with Alex that Smokeping should not interfere with the umask
settings at all if it's not customizable. I believe the default umask
setting is 0007 which should already allow sufficient rights to the
files. But maybe a umask setting 0002 would be best as a compromise.

It's not always possible or desirable to use suEXEC.

Cheers!


-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,
Kind regards,

Thomas Lobker
SpeakUp BV
088-SPEAKUP (088-7732587)
www.speakup.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex <alex at wenlex.nl>
To: smokeping-users at lists.oetiker.ch
Cc: Tobias Oetiker <tobi at oetiker.ch>, Thomas Lobker <thomas at speakup.nl>
Subject: Re: [smokeping-users] [BUG] setting umask for new RRD files
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 16:16:28 +0200

On Thursday 06 May 2010, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Today Alex wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 May 2010, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > > Today Thomas Lobker wrote:
> > > > For some reason Smokeping is forcing a umask 022 on the data
> > > > folder
> > > 
> > > you should be using suexec so that the cgi runs as the same user as
> > > the daemon ...
> > 
> > Why is smokeping setting the umask at all? By doing that it is
> > deliberately breaking standard behaviour. If this command is removed
> > from smokeping, users can let smokeping create files with the
> > permissions _they_ want, not an _arbitrary_ and unconfigurable value
> > which only works in one particular environment.

> the umask is being set because we found that many people ran into
> trouble because their default umask settings were too tight and
> thus the web smokeping was not able to read the rrd files written
> by the daemon ... I'll be glat to incorporate your patch if it did
> not remove the fix for that problem ...

That solution is not very unix-like, those users should have set the umask 
less restrictive before starting smokeping. Even then, the currently forced 
umask of 022 is very restrictive, those users had it even more restrictive?

For me a umask of 002 would solve the issue, does it for you? That would be 
the quickest fix. A bit more cumbersome, but cleaner, would be to remove the 
umask call or make it configurable.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3480 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.oetiker.ch/pipermail/smokeping-users/attachments/20100506/81244ffb/attachment.bin