-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18.6k
nobody/nogroup shouldn't be used #55370
Copy link
Copy link
Open
Labels
1.severity: securityIssues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix oneIssues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix one3.skill: sprintableA larger issue which is split into distinct actionable tasksA larger issue which is split into distinct actionable tasks5.scope: trackingLong-lived issue tracking long-term fixes or multiple sub-problemsLong-lived issue tracking long-term fixes or multiple sub-problems6.topic: nixosIssues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOSIssues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOS
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
1.severity: securityIssues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix oneIssues which raise a security issue, or PRs that fix one3.skill: sprintableA larger issue which is split into distinct actionable tasksA larger issue which is split into distinct actionable tasks5.scope: trackingLong-lived issue tracking long-term fixes or multiple sub-problemsLong-lived issue tracking long-term fixes or multiple sub-problems6.topic: nixosIssues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOSIssues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOS
Fields
Give feedbackNo fields configured for issues without a type.
Issue description
The problem with
nobody/nogroupis that people expect them to be nobody while in fact they are somebody named nobody. And that somebody is then shared among all services using it.Their only legitimate purpose is for NFS.
Here are all the files mentioning either - let's get them knocked off!
Generated as follows: