requiring .desktop files to be executable ?

[John Tapsell]

2009/2/18 Michael Pyne <mpyne at purinchu.net>:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009, David Faure wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>> > 2009/2/18 David Faure <faure at kde.org>:
>> > > On Wednesday 18 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>> > >> 2009/2/18 Michael Pyne <mpyne at purinchu.net>:
>> > >> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009, John Tapsell wrote:
>> > >> >> Let's not let this thread die again. It is really important to
>> > >> >> come
>> > >> >> to a solution.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> How about allowing execution if any of following conditions are
>> > >> >> set: * x-bit it set
>> > >> >> * owned by root
>> > >> >> * In a standard path
>> > >
>> > > Sounds good to me.
>> > >
>> > >> > Why allow both root exception and std path exception? It seems to
>> > >> > me
>> > >> > that they cover the same case.
>> > >
>> > > No they don't, my $KDEDIR is not owned by root, and yet I don't want
>> > > to
>> > > have to +x every single desktop in it ;-)
>
> I thought that we would be counting KDEDIRS and XDG_DATA_DIRS (or whichever
> is correct) as part of the "standard paths" and not /usr (which should
> already be present).
>
>> > >> How about allowing execution if any of following conditions are set:
>> > >> * x-bit it set
>> > >> * owned by root, and not writable by current user (if they aren't
>> > >> root) * In a standard path, not writable by current user (if they
>> > >> aren't root)
>> > >
>> > > I don't see what's "bad" about writable by current user.
>> > > And again this would break the user-owned $KDEDIR case.
>> >
>> > I was just thinking of the case where Desktop is a fat32 partition
>> > (usb key, nfs, or something) so the files are all owned by root and
>> > are writable.
>>
>> We could remove the "owned by root" from the initial list above, then.
>> Users rarely go in /usr/something/notstandard and click on .desktop
>> files... I think it's enough to allow execution of desktop files from
>> `kde4-config --path xdgdata-apps`.
>
> Exactly what I'm talking about actually :)

If you have a .desktop file that is owned by root and is not writable
by the user - surely we can trust that it can be run?  Especially
since the user _can't_ make it executable.

There's a lot of different types of setup, and it wouldn't surprise me
if there are installations where admins put .desktop files on peoples
desktop.

Maybe look at it the other way round.  Is there any reason to _not_
trust a .desktop file that was owned by root and not writable by the
user?

John