8:09 p.m.
I opened a second tab in konsole and immediately ran sudo su to
obtain a prompt as root. I ran a program and then I forgot to
exit and just closed the tab. Am I still root somewhere? Or did
closing the tab do the same thing as a proper exit?
8:33 p.m.
On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:09:59 -0600
Peter Gueckel <pgueckel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I opened a second tab in konsole and immediately ran sudo su to
obtain a prompt as root. I ran a program and then I forgot to
exit and just closed the tab. Am I still root somewhere? Or did
closing the tab do the same thing as a proper exit?
It's my understanding that when the terminal closes, all associated
processes are automatically stopped, unless something like screen was
used to start a background job. I'm not sure if it is the same exit as
a proper logout; e.g. does it save shell history?.
8:48 p.m.
On 05/27/2017 06:09 PM, Peter Gueckel wrote:
I opened a second tab in konsole and immediately ran sudo su to
obtain a prompt as root. I ran a program and then I forgot to
exit and just closed the tab. Am I still root somewhere? Or did
closing the tab do the same thing as a proper exit?
First, running sudo su is redundant if you know the root password, as I
presume you do. (It's your system, you installed it and assigned the
root password.) In fact, the only reason to use sudo at all is if you
don't know the root password, or you're running a distro that doesn't
normally have a root password.
That being said, closing a tab, or the terminal program exits any and
all programs that were active, including the shell, and logs you out, so
there's no root session floating around in the void to worry about.
9:05 p.m.
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:48:06 -0700
Joe Zeff wrote:
First, running sudo su is redundant if you know the root password, as
I
presume you do. (It's your system, you installed it and assigned the
root password.) In fact, the only reason to use sudo at all is if you
don't know the root password, or you're running a distro that doesn't
normally have a root password.
Nope, completely myth, and here's why: "sudo su -l" is absolutely
the fastest and most efficient way to get a root login shell
where the PATH is set correctly to find the programs that root
needs to be able to run (at least it is the fastest way if your
user is setup to not require a password for sudo :-).
9:19 p.m.
On 05/27/2017 07:05 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:48:06 -0700
Joe Zeff wrote:
> First, running sudo su is redundant if you know the root password, as I
> presume you do. (It's your system, you installed it and assigned the
> root password.) In fact, the only reason to use sudo at all is if you
> don't know the root password, or you're running a distro that doesn't
> normally have a root password.
Nope, completely myth, and here's why: "sudo su -l" is absolutely
the fastest and most efficient way to get a root login shell
where the PATH is set correctly to find the programs that root
needs to be able to run (at least it is the fastest way if your
user is setup to not require a password for sudo :-).
I always use "sudo -s" and I've never had a problem with paths.
10:36 p.m.
OK, thanks, guys. I was just curious.
Yes, I do have my system set up not to require the password for
sudo. It is faster than constantly having to type it, time and
again. System installation is hell without it ;-)
Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to find the
programs that root needs"?
12:12 a.m.
you could run "who" to see if the root user is still logged on as well.
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Peter Gueckel <pgueckel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, thanks, guys. I was just curious.
Yes, I do have my system set up not to require the password for
sudo. It is faster than constantly having to type it, time and
again. System installation is hell without it ;-)
Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to find the
programs that root needs"?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
9:22 a.m.
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/27/2017 10:12 PM, fred roller wrote:
> you could run "who" to see if the root user is still logged
on as
well.
I have a terminal open, logged in as root with su -. When I
ran who, it
just showed me, logged in once and no root. Checking with
uptime, it
shows one user.
I never heard of 'who' ;-) Unfortunately, it is true: I ran
'su -' and then who in another tab and in a different terminal
emulator and it showed no root nor me as root, just me.
12:13 a.m.
On 27May2017 21:36, Peter Gueckel <pgueckel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, thanks, guys. I was just curious.
Well, closing a terminal emulator should normally sent SIGHUP to processes
still on the terminal. Which may or may not exit (most will). And then there's
job control and "disown"ed jobs (things you've asked to continue running by
no
longer being managed by the shell).
[...]
Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to find
the
programs that root needs"?
In the sense used earlier, "what root gets as a login shell" i.e. when
root's
profile gets run. This the "su -l" etc. My preferred incantation is "su
-"
myself.
But nothing prevents you just adding /sbin and /usr/sbin etc to your own path;
plenty of "administrative" commands make perfect sense to run as yourself in
reporting mode. "ifconfig" is the one I notice missing most.
Get a root login shell. Inspect the $PATH. Update your own as you see fit.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au>
8:16 a.m.
On Sat, 27 May 2017 21:36:29 -0600
Peter Gueckel wrote:
Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to find
the
programs that root needs"?
Well, root tends to have /sbin which "normal" users don't
have by default. There may be others, also there can be
aliases and such in root's .bash_profile which won't
show up without a login shell.
9:27 a.m.
On 28 May 2017 at 15:16, Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2017 21:36:29 -0600
Peter Gueckel wrote:
> Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to find the
> programs that root needs"?
Well, root tends to have /sbin which "normal" users don't
have by default.
That's not true any more; Nowadays normal users have /usr/sbin/ in
their path, and /sbin/ is a symlink to /usr/sbin...
--
Ahmad Samir
9:28 a.m.
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Sat, 27 May 2017 21:36:29 -0600
Peter Gueckel wrote:
> Now, I wonder about $PATH: what is the correct value "to
find the
> programs that root needs"?
Well, root tends to have /sbin which "normal" users don't
have by default. There may be others, also there can be
aliases and such in root's .bash_profile which won't
show up without a login shell.
OK, thanks. I just checked and /usr/sbin is in the PATH for
both root and users by default. The only change I made there
is to add ./local/bin for users (me).
3:19 p.m.
On 05/28/2017 01:04 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Tom Horsley
<horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nope, completely myth, and here's why: "sudo su -l" is absolutely
> the fastest and most efficient way to get a root login shell
> where the PATH is set correctly
"-i" is faster than "su -l" :)
Hey, I learned something new! The thing that has always annoyed me
about "sudo -s" is that it leaves me in the current directory instead of
going to /root. "sudo -i" solves that.
2:17 p.m.
On 05/27/2017 10:12 PM, fred roller wrote:
> you could run "who" to see if the root user is still logged
on as
well.
I have a terminal open, logged in as root with su -. When I
ran who, it
just showed me, logged in once and no root. Checking with
uptime, it
shows one user.
I never heard of 'who' ;-) Unfortunately, it is true: I ran
'su -' and then who in another tab and in a different terminal
emulator and it showed no root nor me as root, just me.
True, you will see the multiple instances of your log-in and their
"terminal". "tty" for your graphics and "pts" for terminal
emulators. Open
multiple tabs in your cli emulator and run who and you will what I am
talking about. Running sudo invokes root privileges for your user, hence,
no root user just your user. You would have to set root pw and actually
log-in with root to see the root log in. I apologies for the ambiguity.
-- Fred
11:55 a.m.
On 05/29/2017 12:17 PM, fred roller wrote:
> On 05/27/2017 10:12 PM, fred roller wrote:
>> you could run "who" to see if the root user is still logged
on as well.
>
> I have a terminal open, logged in as root with su -. When I
ran who, it
> just showed me, logged in once and no root. Checking with
uptime, it
> shows one user.
I never heard of 'who' ;-) Unfortunately, it is true: I ran
'su -' and then who in another tab and in a different terminal
emulator and it showed no root nor me as root, just me.
True, you will see the multiple instances of your log-in and their
"terminal". "tty" for your graphics and "pts" for terminal
emulators.
Open multiple tabs in your cli emulator and run who and you will what I
am talking about. Running sudo invokes root privileges for your user,
hence, no root user just your user. You would have to set root pw and
actually log-in with root to see the root log in. I apologies for the
ambiguity.
"who" shows you who is currently logged in (based on data from
/var/run/utmp or /var/log/wtmp). Since the other "su -" sessions were
spawned from the initial user's shell, "who" only shows that initial
login user since that's the only user who actually logged in and has
data in utmp or wtmp. Remember that "su -" or "sudo -i" do NOT
actually
perform logins--they fork a process and run the shell in that process
handing it flags that make it ACT like a login shell.
If you do a "ps flax" and track things, you'll see that the bash
sessions with the UID of root all have parent processes that are "su -"
programs, which were in turn run by the initial logged-in user. You'll
also find their process names are "-bash" and not "bash".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- We look for things. Things that make us go! -
- -- The "Paclyds", Star Trek TNG -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2533
days inactive
2535
days old
17 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Ahmad Samir -
Cameron Simpson -
fred roller -
Joe Zeff -
Peter Gueckel -
Rick Stevens -
Samuel Sieb -
stan -
Tom H -
Tom Horsley