@spacekitteh, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @edolstra, @rickynils and @bluescreen303 to be potential reviewers.

What's the use case for this? The example of setting NoNewPrivileges globally seems like it would break at least some services. In general, it seems hard to reason about the correctness of setting an option for all units.

Some other examples would be Personality=s390x (what uname reports);
setting TTYPath=/dev/tty3 and StandardOutput=tty; or Environment="some env
vars here".

In my case of NoNewPrivileges, I'm going to set it to lock my box down, and
also be using it to see just how much actually breaks; if something
breaks I'll try to fix them.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 at 19:29 Eelco Dolstra notifications@github.com wrote:

What's the use case for this? The example of setting NoNewPrivileges
globally seems like it would break at least some services. In general, it
seems hard to reason about the correctness of setting an option for all
units.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#20335 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2crEwUqlZtHmMzNYddxGsa2TnKmycJks5q9DWDgaJpZM4KvZ9d
.

I don't think we should add options that really cannot be used correctly. If you want to experiment with NoNewPrivileges, you can just change your local Nixpkgs tree, of course.

This option could be useful if it's marked with internal = true to implement distro-wide defaults. But it should not be exposed to users.

How are the examples I gave not correct use cases?

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 at 19:46 Eelco Dolstra notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think we should add options that really cannot be used correctly.
If you want to experiment with NoNewPrivileges, you can just change your
local Nixpkgs tree, of course.

This option could be useful if it's marked with internal = true to
implement distro-wide defaults. But it should not be exposed to users.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#20335 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2crP4slqBL0rYCSsXiA01xqsXp0pRvks5q9DmHgaJpZM4KvZ9d
.

The use case of "testing to see what breaks" is fine, and is why @edolstra mentioned it being marked as internal. However, this kind of deep mucking about in NixOS is very easy to accomplish with a local clone, no PRs required.

It is very unlikely there will be a single option a regular user will be safely able to add to every unit, without causing breakage. I think this is what he means by the option can't be used correctly.

Closed because of common disagreement.