On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, at 3:13 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>> "search" is exactly the wrong word for what this bit does, because if you
>> don't have "search" permission, the one thing you can still do is look at
>> the names.
>
> in ramfs, but that's a bug that no-one had noticed
oh it's the sam
I see I'd misapplied the rule in walk(5) so fossil is fine. It has to do
with searching from . when you are there, which makes sense, not when
entering the directory from its parent,
so ignore that part of my earlier post.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:13 AM Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> "search" is exac
>
> "search" is exactly the wrong word for what this bit does, because if you
> don't have "search" permission, the one thing you can still do is look at
> the names.
in ramfs, but that's a bug that no-one had noticed
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:05 AM wrote:
> >>> So, cd'ing into a directory with
>>> So, cd'ing into a directory withut +x leads
>>> to an inescapabler trap.
>> ...
>> fossil just moved up another notch in my estimation because directory search
>> restriction is so broken.
>
> o...@eigenstate.org, what version of fossil were your experiments done on?
> My observations are dif
>> So, cd'ing into a directory withut +x leads
>> to an inescapabler trap.
> ...
> fossil just moved up another notch in my estimation because directory search
> restriction is so broken.
o...@eigenstate.org, what version of fossil were your experiments done on?
My observations are different:
te
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, at 10:13 PM, o...@eigenstate.org wrote:
> > it's open() which is failing. i suppose it should.
> >
> > if the open fails, maybe access should stat the file, and if it's a
> > directory, try dirread(2). or maybe just opening it for reading will
> > work. i don't know, i'm new t
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> execute permission on files, meaning here non-directories, is a special
> variant of read. a file with mode 0111 can be opened with OEXEC and read(2)
> will work as well as exec(2),
> but can't be opened with OREAD, because it's not got an
> it's open() which is failing. i suppose it should.
>
> if the open fails, maybe access should stat the file, and if it's a
> directory, try dirread(2). or maybe just opening it for reading will
> work. i don't know, i'm new to this bit of plan 9 & i haven't slept.
This is a bit subtle, though -
execute permission on files, meaning here non-directories, is a special
variant of read. a file with mode 0111 can be opened with OEXEC and read(2)
will work as well as exec(2),
but can't be opened with OREAD, because it's not got any of 0444 set. bits
0111 distinguish a file with contents that are
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:38 AM Ethan Gardener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 8:22 PM, Richard Miller wrote:
> > Looks to me like access(2) is not doing the right thing for directory
> > execute (=search) permission.
>
> thanks for the tip. access is a very simple function. it doesn't do the ri
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, at 8:22 PM, Richard Miller wrote:
> Looks to me like access(2) is not doing the right thing for directory
> execute (=search) permission.
thanks for the tip. access is a very simple function. it doesn't do the right
thing, but there's a reason:
BUGS
Since file
Looks to me like access(2) is not doing the right thing for directory
execute (=search) permission.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tdd7a9b1b32d01f54-M4da73ba68bd93f0827b0a15c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/
12 matches
Mail list logo
