there's one other small cosideration that I can think of. While I don't do this, I know some people keep scripts/binaries for sysadmin use in /root. If any of these are suid then you'll have a problem if you mount /home as nosuid (something that I do). I sometimes have an suid program in /root if I'm trying out a new version of a system utility (mount, for example). This type of thing can be difficult to find. (As you can tell, I got burned by this once :-).
On 26 Jul 1998, Torsten Hilbrich wrote: > On: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:43:55 +0800 Jieyao writes: > > > > I have one partition which I had mounted as /home. I figured that > > since this is gonna store user information and files, I might as > > well put the root home there too. So I created /home/root and > > change /root to a symbolic link to /home/root Is there any security > > risk in doing this? > > > > One problem that I can think of is if there is any serious problem > > and the other partition can't mount than probably root can > ^^^ > > login. This is correct? > > I assume you meant "can't" here ;-) > > If the home directory of some user don't exists, it is automatically > logged on with HOME=/ (I just tried it with root). The only problem > would be the unusual environment if you used to define some helpful > aliases and shell functions. But a sysadmin should be able to work > without these. > > A bigger problem would be a shell that lies on a separate partition > (such as /usr), this is the only reason I still use /bin/bash as login > shell for root (otherwise /usr/bin/zsh would be my favorite). > > I can't see any other problem with the root's home directory on a > separate partition, if you used the correct file and directory > permissions. > > Torsten -- kc Kevin Conover: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
