From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 07:51:39 GMT
Subject: Re: git-daemon --inetd
Message-ID: <7vbr2tqwl0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0509150829090.26803@g5.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> Hmm.. That should work fine. You can already just run it that way by just 
> wrapping it in "chroot", but if you don't want that for some reason, how 
> about a patch like this?

Later exchanges between you and HPA appeared to me that we would
need a chroot environment which has "enough stuff" and that this
patch may not help him very much.  Am I mistaken?

If not, then...

> +		if (!strncmp(arg, "--chroot=", 9)) {
> +			if (chroot(arg+9) < 0)
> +				die("unable to chroot to '%s': %s", arg+9, strerror(errno));
> +			if (chdir("/") < 0)
> +				die("unable to chdir to new root");
> +
> +			user = user ? user : "nobody";
> +			group = group ? group : "nobody";
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (!strncmp(arg, "--user=", 7)) {
> +			user = arg+7;
> +			continue;
> +		}

I think resolving user and group to numeric before you do
chroot() might make the setting up of chrooted environment a
little simpler; no need for supporting getpwnam and getgrnam
there.  On the other hand it may not matter -- you can always
give numeric uid/gid to begin with.