You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have created an application that requires the setuid bit to be on one of the executable. However, when I have a custom file_info mode set with the setuid bit set, it does not actually get properly set in the deb or rpm package that is created. In fact, some weird permissions appear for the file in the deb package and the rpm package is not even able to install.
You specified the file mode in decimal instead of octal which would be 04555. However, you still discovered a bug in the deb and apk packagers. The rpm packager does produce a file with suid bit when the mode is specified in octal, though.
The reason for the wrong behavior in the deb and apk packagers is that we use tar.FileInfoHeader which sets the mode to int64((*files.Content).Mode().Perm()) and the call to Perm() masks the suid bit with mode & ModePerm and ModePerm is 0777. We'll have to fix this by populating the tar header ourselves or by fixing the mode after calling tar.FileInfoHeader.
Howdy,
I have created an application that requires the setuid bit to be on one of the executable. However, when I have a custom file_info mode set with the setuid bit set, it does not actually get properly set in the deb or rpm package that is created. In fact, some weird permissions appear for the file in the deb package and the rpm package is not even able to install.
This is what I have in my nfpm.yaml file:
But this is what permission actually show up in the package:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: