edubuntu-bugs team mailing list archive

[Alkis Georgopoulos <694066@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Public bug reported:

In the Ubuntu/000-basic-configuration, some whitelists are defined for allowed services:
        RCS_WHITELIST=${RCS_WHITELIST:-"mountkernfs.sh mountdevsubfs.sh hostname.sh loopback udev module-init-tools procps.sh etc-setserial ltsp-client-setup setserial console-setup console-screen.kbd.sh"}
        RC2_WHITELIST=${RC2_WHITELIST:-"klogd sysklogd ltsp-client-core usplash rmnologin dbus"}
        RC6_WHITELIST=${RC6_WHITELIST:-"reboot"}
        RC0_WHITELIST=${RC0_WHITELIST:-"halt"}

On the other hand, Debian/000-basic-configuration has those lists commented out:
        #RCS_WHITELIST=${RCS_WHITELIST:-"mountkernfs.sh mountvirtfs hostname.sh keymap.sh loopback udev mountdevsubfs.sh mountdevsubfs module-init-tools procps.sh etc-setserial ltsp-client-setup setserial console-screen.sh xorg-common x11-common xfree86-common ifupdown networking fuse nbd-client"}
        #RC2_WHITELIST=${RC2_WHITELIST:-"klogd sysklogd ltsp-client ltsp-client-core nbd-client usplash rmnologin rsyslog dbus hal"}


For Ubuntu, where those variables are defined, the 000-init-whitelist plugin calls update-rc.d and prevents those services from starting on boot. A lot of those services are significant, for example cups (for printer sharing), ondemand (so that thin client CPUs don't overheat), sendsigs (for proper shutdown), binfmt-support (if wine or java apps are installed on the chroot), openbsd-inetd (if ident2 is installed on the chroot for squid), etc etc, see attached file.

Is there any reason for those white lists to be defined? Can we comment
them out like Debian does?

** Affects: ltsp (Ubuntu)
     Importance: Undecided
         Status: New

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Edubuntu
Bugsquad, which is subscribed to ltsp in ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/694066

Title:
  RC_WHITELIST prevents a lot of services from being started on thin/fat clients