[Puppet Users] RFC: Default File Permissions

Jcbollinger

at Feb 9, 2013 at 12:19 am

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:48:58 PM UTC-6, Josh Cooper wrote:
Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources was
discussed on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it equally applies
to owner and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files when none
are specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied the permissions from
the file source to the newly created one. However, this causes problems on
Windows[2] agents due to the way that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We
break NTFS access control inheritance to ensure the effective permissions
are not greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are not
synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes against what
jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource properties should not
be modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel said, "A core principle of Puppet
is that you can choose to only manage the attributes of a resource that you
care about, and can leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has
been around so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding a file
parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If true and permissions
are unspecified, Puppet would continue copying source permissions as it
does today, for both newly created and existing files. This would be the
default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy them from
the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly created files would
be based on the user that Puppet is running as. And the permissions for
existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and #18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

I think this is a fine and useful idea, but I'm not sure it goes far
enough. In the first place, it says nothing about uid / gid, even though
it is acknowledged that the same problem applies to them. Is that just an
oversight?

In the second place, there is another usage mode to consider: what if you
want to copy source permissions / uid / gid in the event that Puppet
creates the file (since you cannot create the file without choosing those
properties somehow), but you do not want to enforce those properties on the
file if it already exists? I'm not convinced that this case needs to be
supported, but it should at least be considered.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Josh Cooper

at Feb 9, 2013 at 3:08 am

⇧

Hi John,

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, jcbollinger wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:48:58 PM UTC-6, Josh Cooper wrote:

Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources was
discussed on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it equally applies
to owner and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files when none
are specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied the permissions from
the file source to the newly created one. However, this causes problems on
Windows[2] agents due to the way that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We
break NTFS access control inheritance to ensure the effective permissions
are not greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are not
synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes against what
jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource properties should not be
modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel said, "A core principle of Puppet is
that you can choose to only manage the attributes of a resource that you
care about, and can leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has
been around so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding a file
parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If true and permissions
are unspecified, Puppet would continue copying source permissions as it does
today, for both newly created and existing files. This would be the default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy them from
the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly created files would be
based on the user that Puppet is running as. And the permissions for
existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and #18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

I think this is a fine and useful idea, but I'm not sure it goes far enough.
In the first place, it says nothing about uid / gid, even though it is
acknowledged that the same problem applies to them. Is that just an
oversight?

Good point, I didn't explicitly mention this, but yes, I am proposing
that this behavior affect all file permissions - uid, gid, and mode.

In the second place, there is another usage mode to consider: what if you
want to copy source permissions / uid / gid in the event that Puppet creates
the file (since you cannot create the file without choosing those properties
somehow), but you do not want to enforce those properties on the file if it
already exists? I'm not convinced that this case needs to be supported, but
it should at least be considered.

So this is really the heart of issue #5240. Perhaps
use_source_permissions needs to be more than a boolean? Something
like:

use_source_permissions
   :always - what puppet does today (default)
   :creates - only apply source permissions when creating a file
   :never - what I was proposing

Also, I didn't explicitly mention this, but I am proposing that this
affect all types of file resources (file, dir, link), not just files.

Josh

--
Josh Cooper
Developer, Puppet Labs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Jakov Sosic

at Feb 9, 2013 at 1:21 am

⇧

On 02/08/2013 06:46 PM, Josh Cooper wrote:
Hi John,

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, jcbollinger
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:48:58 PM UTC-6, Josh Cooper wrote:

Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources
was discussed on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it
equally applies to owner and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files
when none are specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied
the permissions from the file source to the newly created one.
However, this causes problems on Windows[2] agents due to the way
that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We break NTFS access
control inheritance to ensure the effective permissions are not
greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are
not synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes
against what jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource
properties should not be modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel
said, "A core principle of Puppet is that you can choose to only
manage the attributes of a resource that you care about, and can
leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has been around
so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding
a file parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If
true and permissions are unspecified, Puppet would continue
copying source permissions as it does today, for both newly
created and existing files. This would be the default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy
them from the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly
created files would be based on the user that Puppet is running
as. And the permissions for existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and
#18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

I think this is a fine and useful idea, but I'm not sure it goes
far enough. In the first place, it says nothing about uid / gid,
even though it is acknowledged that the same problem applies to
them. Is that just an oversight?

Good point, I didn't explicitly mention this, but yes, I am
proposing that this behavior affect all file permissions - uid, gid,
and mode.

In the second place, there is another usage mode to consider: what
if you want to copy source permissions / uid / gid in the event
that Puppet creates the file (since you cannot create the file
without choosing those properties somehow), but you do not want to
enforce those properties on the file if it already exists? I'm not
convinced that this case needs to be supported, but it should at
least be considered.

So this is really the heart of issue #5240. Perhaps
use_source_permissions needs to be more than a boolean? Something
like:

use_source_permissions :always - what puppet does today (default)
:creates - only apply source permissions when creating a file :never
- what I was proposing

Also, I didn't explicitly mention this, but I am proposing that this
affect all types of file resources (file, dir, link), not just
files.

Could this attribute be shorter? Like 'use_source_perm' or just
'source_perms'?

And I agree with this solution, and in the next major version simply
change default to never and that's it :)

--
Jakov Sosic
www.srce.unizg.hr

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Keith Burdis

at Feb 9, 2013 at 9:22 am

⇧

Since it would apply to more than just permissions perhaps
'source_attributes' would be better?

- Keith

On 9 Feb 2013 01:21, "Jakov Sosic" wrote:

On 02/08/2013 06:46 PM, Josh Cooper wrote:

Hi John,

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, jcbollinger
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:48:58 PM UTC-6, Josh Cooper wrote:

Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources
was discussed on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it
equally applies to owner and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files
when none are specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied
the permissions from the file source to the newly created one.
However, this causes problems on Windows[2] agents due to the way
that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We break NTFS access
control inheritance to ensure the effective permissions are not
greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are
not synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes
against what jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource
properties should not be modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel
said, "A core principle of Puppet is that you can choose to only
manage the attributes of a resource that you care about, and can
leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has been around
so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding
a file parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If
true and permissions are unspecified, Puppet would continue
copying source permissions as it does today, for both newly
created and existing files. This would be the default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy
them from the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly
created files would be based on the user that Puppet is running
as. And the permissions for existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and
#18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

I think this is a fine and useful idea, but I'm not sure it goes
far enough. In the first place, it says nothing about uid / gid,
even though it is acknowledged that the same problem applies to
them. Is that just an oversight?

Good point, I didn't explicitly mention this, but yes, I am
proposing that this behavior affect all file permissions - uid, gid,
and mode.

In the second place, there is another usage mode to consider: what

if you want to copy source permissions / uid / gid in the event
that Puppet creates the file (since you cannot create the file
without choosing those properties somehow), but you do not want to
enforce those properties on the file if it already exists? I'm not
convinced that this case needs to be supported, but it should at
least be considered.

So this is really the heart of issue #5240. Perhaps
use_source_permissions needs to be more than a boolean? Something
like:

use_source_permissions :always - what puppet does today (default)
:creates - only apply source permissions when creating a file :never
- what I was proposing

Also, I didn't explicitly mention this, but I am proposing that this
affect all types of file resources (file, dir, link), not just
files.

Could this attribute be shorter? Like 'use_source_perm' or just
'source_perms'?

And I agree with this solution, and in the next major version simply
change default to never and that's it :)

--
Jakov Sosic
www.srce.unizg.hr

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<puppet-users%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/puppet-users?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Nikola Petrov

at Feb 9, 2013 at 2:05 am

⇧

I have seen this issue for sure many times. I always forget this and
when I see it while running with --noop, I change the owner and the
group on the file resource. I am +1 on fixing this to have a more
deterministic behaviour

Best, Nikola

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:48:58PM -0800, Josh Cooper wrote:
Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources was discussed
on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it equally applies to owner
and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files when none are
specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied the permissions from the
file source to the newly created one. However, this causes problems on
Windows[2] agents due to the way that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We
break NTFS access control inheritance to ensure the effective permissions
are not greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are not
synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes against what
jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource properties should not
be modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel said, "A core principle of Puppet
is that you can choose to only manage the attributes of a resource that you
care about, and can leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has
been around so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding a file
parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If true and permissions
are unspecified, Puppet would continue copying source permissions as it
does today, for both newly created and existing files. This would be the
default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy them from
the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly created files would
be based on the user that Puppet is running as. And the permissions for
existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and #18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

Josh

[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/puppet-users/CI7pEUHknm4/x-hCGJn6Ms8J
[2] https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/18931
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/CI7pEUHknm4/VtCl9YmeIS0J
[4] http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5240#note-16
[5] https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5240

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Llowder

at Feb 8, 2013 at 2:12 pm

⇧

On Friday, February 8, 2013 6:56:55 AM UTC-6, nikolavp wrote:
I have seen this issue for sure many times. I always forget this and
when I see it while running with --noop, I change the owner and the
group on the file resource. I am +1 on fixing this to have a more
deterministic behaviour

It seems like a good idea, though to maintain backwards compatibilty, would
it be better to have the proposed fixed default to false (ie, maintain
current behavior)?

Best, Nikola

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:48:58PM -0800, Josh Cooper wrote:
Recently, the issue of copying file modes from remote sources was discussed
on the puppet-users mailing list[1], although it equally applies to owner
and group.

One issue is what permissions to apply to newly created files when none are
specified? Historically, Puppet has always copied the permissions from the
file source to the newly created one. However, this causes problems on
Windows[2] agents due to the way that Puppet emulates POSIX permissions. We
break NTFS access control inheritance to ensure the effective
permissions
are not greater than what Puppet has granted. It also causes problems on
*nix agents, when the files' source is remote and uid/gids are not
synchronized.

A second, but related issue, is that Puppet applies the same
copy-permissions logic to files that already exist. This goes against what
jcbollinger said, "unmanaged resources and resource properties should not
be modified by Puppet"[3], and what Nigel said, "A core principle of Puppet
is that you can choose to only manage the attributes of a resource that you
care about, and can leave the rest unmanaged."[4] However, this "bug" has
been around so long, at least 0.24.8, that we can't change behaviors in a
minor release.[5]

Patrick and I talked about this and would like to propose adding a file
parameter, something like `use_source_permissions`. If true and
permissions
are unspecified, Puppet would continue copying source permissions as it
does today, for both newly created and existing files. This would be the
default.

If false and permission are unspecified, Puppet would never copy them from
the source. Instead the permission defaults for newly created files would
be based on the user that Puppet is running as. And the permissions for
existing files would be unmodified.

Doing so would provide a mechanism for resolving both #5240 and #18931.

Comments and feedback welcome.

Josh

[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/puppet-users/CI7pEUHknm4/x-hCGJn6Ms8J
[2] https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/18931
[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/CI7pEUHknm4/VtCl9YmeIS0J
[4] http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5240#note-16
[5] https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/5240

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Josh Cooper

at Feb 9, 2013 at 2:35 am

⇧

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:42 AM, llowder wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2013 6:56:55 AM UTC-6, nikolavp wrote:

I have seen this issue for sure many times. I always forget this and
when I see it while running with --noop, I change the owner and the
group on the file resource. I am +1 on fixing this to have a more
deterministic behaviour

It seems like a good idea, though to maintain backwards compatibilty, would
it be better to have the proposed fixed default to false (ie, maintain
current behavior)?

"If true and permissions are unspecified, Puppet would continue
copying source permissions as it does today, for both newly created
and existing files. This would be the default."

Josh

--
Josh Cooper
Developer, Puppet Labs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Klavs Klavsen

at Sep 19, 2013 at 6:25 am

⇧

This would be a GREAT benefit, and I for one, would definetely make it my
File default :)

source_permissions is a fine name for it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

Kylo Ginsberg

at Nov 19, 2013 at 5:56 pm

⇧

Hello all,

Just a quick update on this issue. We're planning to fix this for 3.4 and
there's a pull request at:

https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/pull/2087

Also, after some discussion with Nick F, we renamed the 3 values of
source_permissions to:

use, use_when_creating, ignore

Thanks for any comments. It will be great to have this issue addressed!

Kylo

--
Kylo Ginsberg
kylo@puppetlabs.com

*Join us at PuppetConf 2014, September 23-24 in San Francisco*

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/CALsUZFF7w4E4WJFOqDYkfPGpypffoZmLkp%3D6K0%3DCMyyA%3D0cWng%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

reply | permalink

group	puppet-users @
categories	puppet
posted	Feb 8, '13 at 1:49a
active	Nov 19, '13 at 5:56p
posts	10
users	8
website	puppetlabs.com

responses	expanded	Hotkey: s
font	variable	Hotkey: f
user style	avatars	Hotkey: a

[Puppet Users] RFC: Default File Permissions

Search Discussions

Related Discussions

8 users in discussion