Re: parted is ALMOST suitable
>> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job.
>> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of rules:
>> that's what Unix permissions (and Linux's capabilities) are for.
>> It's OK to add a warning and prompt the user to make sure he really
>> means to do that, but there's no point *preventing* the user from
>> shooting his own foot with this tool if he can do it with other
>> tools anyway.
> Users here get no opportunity to shoot themselves or anyone else in the
> foot. Access to raw disks is over my dead body.
So your users don't have access rights to the raw disks?
Great! then (g)parted doesn't need to check anything since the kernel
will do that already.
> So I do not understand your point.
The fact that it checks if the user is UID 0 is either useless (because
the user doesn't have write access to the device anyway, as should
usually be the case for the real physical devices connected to the
machine) or annoying (because it doesn't give any extra security since
the user can shoot himself in the foot with any number of other tools
anyway).
It costs extra code with at best no benefit.
Stefan
Reply to: