GitHub CodeQL reports for overly permissive file permissions
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 10.7k
- Forks
- 1.9k
- Avg merge
- 1d 4h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
CodeQL has a Python rule with ID py/overly-permissive-file which flags several chmod/open calls in the node-gyp Python code. I would like to confirm that these operations are intentionally more permissive and safe to suppress.
Flagged locations
| File | Line | Code | CodeQL concern |
|---|---|---|---|
gyp/pylib/gyp/common.py |
561 | os.chmod(tool_path, 0o755) |
World readable |
gyp/pylib/gyp/flock_tool.py |
43 | os.open(lockfile, ..., 0o666) |
World readable/writable |
gyp/pylib/gyp/mac_tool.py |
250 | os.open(lockfile, ..., 0o666) |
World readable/writable |
0o755oncommon.py:561is set because you are unsure whether all build processes are run with the same user0o666on lock files inflock_tool.pyandmac_tool.pyis intentional, with umask expected to restrict actual permissions
Could you confirm these permissions are intentional and by design?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Review the flagged calls in gyp/pylib/gyp/common.py:561, gyp/pylib/gyp/flock_tool.py:43, and gyp/pylib/gyp/mac_tool.py:250. Start by tracing how these permissions and the process umask are used, then compare the behavior with the CodeQL rule. Done means documenting whether each operation is intentional and safe to suppress, or identifying a required change.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- build-system, security
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100