A lot (and I mean a lot) of criticism can be leveled at systemD. One of the upsides of it becoming popular is the standardization of much of things from the developers’ perspective. It’s easier to target multiple distros when you can rely on systemD’s single implementation of the feature. Over the next decade, I forsee systemD eating more and more of the userspace, until you are only left with managing the differences between DEs and which display server they are using. We’re already headed towards immutable base systems with apps shipping with their own dependencies, which we reduce the differences between distros even further.
If Canonical and RedHat weren’t backing different horses (Snap vs Flatpak), I could see the app containerization system coming under systemD as well fairly soon. The Cosmic DE project uses functionality from systemD to overlay changes onto the system that are reversible, so that alpha versions of Cosmic can be tested without permanently changing the base system. Imagine apps shipping on whatever container runtime, and dynamically overlaying system-level changes as needed for things that tap into the host system via systemd-sysext.
However, distributions like Fedora will definitely be in the lead, judging by previous experiences and stories of adapting new Linux technologies and Systemd components.
I wonder if this is still true, now that he no longer works for RedHat, but Microsoft.
So I don’t even use systemd myself I run OpenRC. Yet honestly I find the idea quite intriguing, having the service manager (PID 1) invoke the command seems like a cool idea to me.
It’s not really a sudo alternative as much as it is another way of doing something similar.
What you’re refering to as Linux, is in fact, Systemd/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Systemd + Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Systemd system made useful by the Systemd corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX
sudo is already an optional component (yes, really—I don’t have it installed). Don’t want its attack surface? You can stick with su and its attack surface instead. Either is going to be smaller than systemd’s.
systemd’s feature creep is only surpassed by that of emacs.
The problem is that those modules are packaged by the developers as opt-out rather than opt-in. It’s a variation on Microsoft’s old embrace-extend-extinguish playbook, only the “extinguish” part hasn’t worked so well because there are some stubborn distros whose needs don’t align with what systemd provides and have maintainers that go out of their way to provide alternatives.
(By contrast, although we may joke about emacs, it’s the myriad of third-party extensions that cause it to just about be its own operating system—it doesn’t all ship with the core.)
I’m not a fan of having root be able to actually login.
Even more so in a true multiuser env where I would rather have privilege escalation be more granular (certain user/groups can esculate certain actions but not others, maybe even limit options of a cmd).
Granted, in a true multiuser environment with an admin who’s carefully tailoring /etc/sudoers to make sure everyone has the least possible privileges that will allow them to still do what they need, sudo is more secure. There’s no doubt of that.
On a machine that has only one human user who’s also the admin, and retains the default sudo-with-user-passwords configuration, su vs sudo is pretty much a wash, security-wise. su requires a second password to get root access, but sudo times out and requires the password to be re-entered while a shell created by su can stay open indefinitely. Which is more easily broken will depend on other details of your situation.
(If you’re running an incorrectly configured ssh server that allows direct root login with only password authentification, having a root password could contribute to problems, but the correct fix there is to reconfigure the ssh server not to do something so stupid. I hope there’s no distro that still ships that way out of the box.)
Systemd isn’t just an init system. It is a project with low level building blocks for a distribution. Most of the complaints are that it isn’t just an init system, while it’s not meant to be just an init system.
I’m no Linux expert, but I’ve never had any problems with sudo, it just works. Shouldn’t systemd have higher priorities on their mind? This feels like change for the sake of change. And if this does happen, I sincerely hope that it just works, like sudo.
I think the article (or more Lennart Poertting post) explains it quite nicely. The problem with sudo is that the sudo binary itself has the ability to gane elevated privileges which is a potential attack surface
invoking them is kind of a pain, my sole experience with it was meson/ninja using it but then that default was removed and I’ve never been able to put it back to satisfy my curiosity of how it’s done
There’s a rewrite of sudo happening in rust, but he wants to throw out the SUID idea altogether?
when invoked under the “run0” name (via a symlink) it behaves a lot like a sudo clone. But with one key difference: it’s not in fact SUID. Instead it just asks the service manager to invoke a command or shell under the target user’s UID. It allocates a new PTY for that, and then shovels data back and forth from the originating TTY and this PTY.
That sounds like opening up the door to what windows is doing UAC and the wonderful vulnerability that the GOG Launcher had for privilege escalation.
I’m not a security researcher, but giving arbitrary users the ability to tel PID 1 to run a binary of the user’s choosing is… probably not what Pottering is suggesting, but opens up to such vulnerabilities. And if it’s written in C/C++ my trust is further reduced.
Giving users access to PID1 running binaries, giving users access to the kernel running binaries as root, I don’t see much difference. SUID was notorious in the past for being leaky, it only ended when distros got serious about fencing use of it in, giving it only to programs actually needing it, making sure that they drop privilege properly, etc.
If anything I’m in the PID1 camp because it’s more microkernely. But in any case broader userspace shouldn’t really care about the mechanism, only have an API to do it and that API being a bit in the file permissions is soooo 1960s.
Add comment