<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org" title="Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>"> <span class="fn">Daniel Stone</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - Allow another local user to run programs on a WAYLAND_DISPLAY"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84817">bug 84817</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td>
<td>FIXED
</td>
<td>NOTABUG
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - Allow another local user to run programs on a WAYLAND_DISPLAY"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c16">Comment # 16</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - Allow another local user to run programs on a WAYLAND_DISPLAY"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84817">bug 84817</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org" title="Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>"> <span class="fn">Daniel Stone</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Paranoik from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c14">comment #14</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to Daniel Stone from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c13">comment #13</a>)
> > All these things are true of Wayland, and have been since day one.
> > ...
> > if you want the socket
> > to be more widely accessible, then you can make it more widely accessible.
> > It's not difficult.
>
> So let it be accessible to everyone by default. What this bug and all that
> sudo arguing are about? If wayland is secure then why the socket is closed
> and why wayland developers are against sudo'ed programs?</span >
Because that isn't the way it works. X11 leans on in-band mechanisms
(password-like 'cookies', or UID lookups), and Wayland has none of those
mechanisms. The connection is secured by the permissions on the socket. This is
a design decision and will not be changed.
(In reply to Paranoik from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=84817#c15">comment #15</a>)
<span class="quote">> On the redhat bugtracker (Bug 1274451) Adam Williamson have told that
> wayland developers banned root from accessing the desktop because it is
> insecure and gparted should be rewritten to run GUI from under user and
> separate it from its core. Others have pointed there that workarounds that
> let root access desktop introduce a hole in a system. And now you are saying
> that it is secure from day one. Who is right then?</span >
root users are not banned from using another user's Wayland socket. No-one is
banned from using another user's Wayland socket. If you want to make it
accessible to another user, then you can make the socket accessible to them.
This is just like running 'xhost' in X11, or sharing your ~/.Xauthority.
I cannot stress this enough: you can run anything you want as any user. No-one
is 'banned'. Please stop saying 'root is banned' because it is not true and
never has been.
That being said, Adam is right: running large GUI and toolkit apps as root is a
terrible idea from a security point of view, and no-one concerned about
security ever recommends doing it. But hey, you can do it if you want to.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but you are no longer adding anything of
value to this discussion. If you would like to contribute productively, you are
welcome to, but this is not it.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>