Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#2I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#3I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
The rationale seems to be: "you're going to run into a lot of other software that'll also fail". He mentions xinetd as an example.
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#4I don't understand how this could be considered not a bug. Clearly, the unit was intended to run as 0day, not root. I must be missing something.
The rationale seems to be: "you're going to run into a lot of other software that'll also fail". He mentions xinetd as an example.
No, xinetd is mentioned as an example of software which accepts digit-prefixed username without issues. (Both by the reporter and by Pottering)
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#5Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#6Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
"Trolls" have not forced anythings - just standard systemd developer behavior. They never make mistakes and everything is someone elses fault.
Systemd is running something as root because it doesn't like something in configuration file, instead of returning error or running it under the correct user. That's a huge WTF and a possible security issue, but alas. Systemd doesn't make mistakes and everything is someone elses fault.
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#7Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
root isn't the default -- the letters are being truncated, and the leading int used as a uid.
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#8Sadly trolls already forced the issue locked but i feel like a sensible thing to do would be to keep that behavior but change the default user for parsing errors from root to nobody.
This seems like a way simpler suggestion than what was discussed in the thread you ought to pass this on
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#9from https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-...
Why he said 0day not valid user?
I create '0day' user on my computer without problem (Fedora 26 Beta, Debian 9)
useradd 0day $ id 0day uid=1003(0day) gid=1003(0day) groups=1003(0day)
Re: Systemd can't handle the process privilege for username startswith number
#10I'm less and less surprised by the hate poettering gets. It's like he's deliberately trying to be as arrogant and ignorant as possible. POSIX says usernames starting with a digit should be fine. But because very few utils have more restrictive rules, systemd arbitrarily follows them too, but reacts in the most idiotic way possible if it considers a username invalid.
Like last time, when in his opinion, "rm -rf *" should have ascended into ".." and shredded the whole file system, just like some systemd tool does. A bug? Usability issue? No way.
What the fuck is wrong with this guy? Since day one of systemd he rallies the world advocating how all the existing init systems are convoluted, full of hacks, hard to maintain while systemd is clean and elegant, and then he seriously defends these insanely stupid unintuitive behaviors? I just don't get it.