On Aug 27 20:00, Ken Brown wrote: > On 8/27/2019 4:13 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Aug 26 17:43, Ken Brown wrote: > >> Don't refer to lacl[pos] unless we know that pos >= 0. > > > > I'm not sure this is entirely right. Moving the assignment to > > class_perm/def_class_perm into the previous if makes sense, but the > > bools has_class_perm and has_def_class_perm should be set no matter > > what, to indicate that class perms had been specified. > > I don't think has_class_perm should be set if class_perm isn't set; that > would > cause a problem at sec_acl.cc:1169. For has_def_class_perm it doesn't seem > to
I see what you mean. class_perm defaults to 0 so the group perms might be off. > matter. Unless I'm missing something, has_def_class_perm is not used when > new_style is true. > > > Either way, does this solve a real-world problem? If so, a pointer > > or a short description would be nice. > > No, I just happened to notice it while studying the ACL code. Ok, thanks, please push. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature