UID_MIN & GID_MIN changed

Ondrej Vasik ovasik at redhat.com
Wed Jun 1 07:44:22 UTC 2011

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:47 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:27:21AM +0200, Peter Vrabec wrote:
> > > > We can also annouce the 200 limit for reserved IDs. ;)
> > > 
> > > We can't just make changes to this range.  Especially not in the lower
> > > end of it.  (and if we change the dynamic system account range to
> > > extend higher, we also can't use the 500-1000 range for that.
> > This change has already happened. If it was done without any harm, I consider 
> > that a good job. :)
> > 
> To be clear, this change has only happened in rawhide with your last commit
> so it's a bit early to tell what harm there is.  With the clarification that
> the dynamic UID range has started allocating at the top instead of the
> bottom in 2007, it makes a lot more sense that we can make this change.  Are
> you sure you only want to allocate 0-200, though?  Remember that the static
> assignments are our limited resource, perhaps you want to go higher than
> that?

I guess Peter was talking about this 0-200 static ID reservation
threshold change - and it happened in Fedora 12 (setup-2.8.7-1.fc12)
with no reported complaints or conflicts so far.

Yes, static assignments are limited resource and it probably makes sense
to increase it even a bit further , however - in ~2 years since the
change of the threshold to 200, 15 static new uid's were assigned. So if
the trend will continue, there is enough free id's for reservation for
~5-10 years - so the threshold at 200 seems to be enough atm (especially
if the dynamically assigned system id's assignments are going from the
highest limit down).

Ondrej Vasik

More information about the devel mailing list