install: don't preserve owner when extracting files #3065
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This will result in errors when run as root in a user namespace without the capability to chown files. Since the owner of a file in a tar can be arbitrary and not be present in the system, the owner is uninteresting anyway.
|
My bad, the sandbox that made this necessary actually didn't catch the chown calls, so this explains why the errors from chown bubbled up. That being said, even if gyp could untar things with their uid from the tar, it shouldn't since it doesn't control the input and the uid might not exist on the system. Chowning to an effectively random number doesn't make a lot of sense. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Checklist
npm install && npm run lint && npm testpassesDescription of change
tar defaults to
trueforpreserveOwnerwhen run as root.In a user namespace one can be root, but not have the capability to chown files, e.g. because of a seccomp filter.
It doesn't make sense to preserve the owner anyway, root or not, since the owner in a tar is chosen by the side providing the tar file, so the user name might not be present in the system. Also, all other files written, would also have a different owner than what was extracted from the tar file.