https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43095
--- Comment #5 from Lionel Elie Mamane <[email protected]> 2011-12-04 12:45:17 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > And that is portable to all Unix systems we care for? Which systems is that? Standards-wise, faccessat() is in POSIX.1-2008 and Open Group Extended API Set, Part 2. It is supported by GNU/Linux and FreeBSD: GNU/Linux: by default since glibc 2.10 (released in May 2009), needs "#define _ATFILE_SOURCE 1" in older glibc. Needs kernel 2.6.16 (released 20 March 2006) or later. FreeBSD: version 8.0 and later. Release: 25 November 25 2009. However, FreeBSD and "Open Group Extended API Set, Part 2" do not document the AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW flag for faccessat :-( So, hmm. > And symlinks are the only thing that can make access() misleading? If LibreOffice is setuid-foo, then access() checks permission for the invoking user, not for foo. That is fixed in FreeBSD and GNU/Linux with the eaccess() function, but that is not standard. That's also what the AT_EACCESS flag to faccessat does. However, now that I think about it, checking permissions of the symlink rather than permissions of symlink's target is probably the wrong thing anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
