Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Security.NoUser] seems a bit harsh for user unit files #64

Open
glitsj16 opened this issue Feb 18, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

[Security.NoUser] seems a bit harsh for user unit files #64

glitsj16 opened this issue Feb 18, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@glitsj16
Copy link

Not sure if my assumptions are correct, but I've always written systemd user (as opposed to system) units without a User=foo or DynamicUser=bar. systemd itself doesn't do that for user units, as they're designed to be run by the user that calls them via systemctl --user. So I was a bit surprised to notice systemdlint always tags these with [Security.NoUser] as an error, regardless where they are placed on the filesystem:

$ systemdlint /home/glitsj16/.config/systemd/user/logout.service
/home/glitsj16/.config/systemd/user/logout.service:1:error [Security.NoUser] - Neither User nor DynamicUser is set
$ systemdlint /usr/lib/systemd/user/dbus.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/dbus.service:1:error [Security.NoUser] - Neither User nor DynamicUser is set
$ systemdlint /etc/systemd/user/privaxy.service
/etc/systemd/user/privaxy.service:1:error [Security.NoUser] - Neither User nor DynamicUser is set

Is there a way to drop this notice for user units? Or at least downgrade it to a warning?

@priv-kweihmann
Copy link
Owner

Currently that's not supported, but I'll take it into consideration for the 2.x planning

@glitsj16
Copy link
Author

That's fine. Looking forward to version 2.0. Thank you for considering it!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants