From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D836D158086 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BC122BC072; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:11:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3FB2BC06B for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <844d85bc625fb6d6eeaea502457430c2ad011594.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Don't use UIDs and GIDs below 100 without QA approval From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 13:10:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <570d3b72-35f4-51ea-fe91-25d49057a9d8@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-Q/o/Wna3NHAmw8N5BeA+" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 45082b25-59f0-4760-9d34-9263132ab3c1 X-Archives-Hash: eeb73fdf4eacf2e8c05cd8076e0b87df --=-Q/o/Wna3NHAmw8N5BeA+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El jue, 11-11-2021 a las 12:48 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribi=C3=B3: > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Florian Schmaus wrote: >=20 > > > We could: > > > - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example, > > > 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation. >=20 > > +1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides doing so. >=20 > > Could you elaborate why the range 500-799 only leaves us with 200 IDs? >=20 > We still need some range for dynamic allocation. Currently that is > 500..999, and would be reduced to 800..999. That seems to be on the low > side already. >=20 > In any case, 300 additional IDs may not be future proof at the rate > we're currently allocating them. So I wonder if we shouldn't move to > above 60000 immediately, or alternatively, give up the whole concept. >=20 > Ulrich Personally I would move to >60000 and keep the 300 additional IDs for the c= ase some software really really needs them=20 --=-Q/o/Wna3NHAmw8N5BeA+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCAAdFiEE808Ng0g83FMNupoifLEMIH/AfbwFAmGNCE0ACgkQfLEMIH/A fbyzLQf+OAYHcNDMgHwYw0uSqi2xDizeILMVo8tWCmdAd2JuLLf58OflS5qSbe1U 1J9hDBj5uYKyr+Bg2c3ncTjV64RbP5Oq2lJIsNGHpBW+l4UkxkCOg9zLja7Gy7BZ KWAHFHm5BjiRJhwxiu7DldXIGeYz5/Plc4ZaHCw0izXLQCAwDDLyKmjW+O2E6eBa ricbGBc0WBHDtCwDz038kpOgirpQ11HYON2ephvfsE33mtO5zeCLu5WeL6YvHoOi c0nzHGTRQXQ1lkP522+e2OedL0cO48PyyZlHZhr9FAvrtdYnnfnLB0XVjul2zjmU lE37hQQP+bg2LdLMKhGQLsJ4gGrgNw== =KmGS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-Q/o/Wna3NHAmw8N5BeA+--