loader: more stringent sanity check

[Austin English]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
> "Austin English" <austinenglish at gmail.com> writes:
>
>  > I suspect it's more often people sudo'ing. I haven't tried it, but I
>  > know that Alexandre committed a fix that checks if you're running with
>  > sudo after the inital .wine directory is made, but I'm not sure about
>  > what happens if you do it initially. I.e.,
>  > $ wineprefixcreate
>  > $ sudo wine notepad # gives an error about permissions
>  >
>  > but does:
>  >
>  > $ rm -rf ~/.wine
>  > $ sudo wine notepad

Just tested this:
$ wineprefixcreate
$ sudo wine notepad
Fails with 'wine: /home/austin/.wine is not owned by you'

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wineprefixcreate
$ wine notepad
Fails with 'wine: /home/austin/.wine is not owned by you'

But:
$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wine notepad
Works fine. Until you attempt to run wine as a normal user at least...

>  That's a good point, we could certainly prevent running wineprefixcreate
>  as root in that case too, that would probably solve most of the
>  problem. Then people have to explicitly login as root, and in that case
>  I don't think we want a warning at all.

Agreed. IMHO, we should not permit running wineprefixcreate with sudo
(or any other wine commands), but if someone explicitly logs in as
root, they (hopefully) know what they're doing. Running sudo on a
current wine directory already issues a warning. While it may be
paranoia based, I prefer to think of it as a preventative precaution,
since in due time (if measures aren't taken) someone's bound to take a
windows virus and screw up  a *nix machine severely. Might as well
prevent it early (especially well in advance of 1.0.0. It doesn't take
much effort, and prevents a lot of headache.