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/
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:28:42AM +0200, dexen deVries wrote:
> the man page of test(1) mentions "-l string" as string length operator
> for -eq, -gt, etc.
> but there seems to be nothing in the plan9port's src/cmd/test.c, nor
> in 9p.io/sources/cmd/test.c
>
> is there any implementation of this
test number two :)
2015-05-18 7:46 GMT+03:00 :
> Seems to work!
>
> --
> Veety
>
>
--
С наилучшими пожеланиями
Жилкин Сергей
With best regards
Zhilkin Sergey
Seems to work!
--
Veety
p
> Tavakkolian [skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:24 AM
> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
> Subject: Re: [9fans] test
>
> a kernel may not work, due to unknown trap
> lack of wifi drivers and other such crap
> don't feel flaccid, fi
a kernel may not work, due to unknown trap
lack of wifi drivers and other such crap
don't feel flaccid, fire up acid
debug it yourself, and spare us the yap
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM Conor Williams
wrote:
> the kernel does not work in an internet cafe
> what shall i do about the internet
Nice!
From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [9fans-boun...@9fans.net] on behalf of Skip
Tavakkolian [skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Subject: Re: [9fans] test
a kernel may not work, due
the kernel does not work in an internet cafe
what shall i do about the internet cafe
ignore the kernel
ignore the kernel
ignore the kernel
.
.
.
ad infinium...
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Shane Morris
wrote:
> Love the limerick! =P
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9..
Love the limerick! =P
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Skip Tavakkolian <9...@9netics.com> wrote:
> please ignore...
>
> there was once a mascot named glenda
> for an operating system that's kinda splenda
> until, that is, a bunch of kids
> ripped off its front fenda
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:20, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
>
> testing...
>
> --
> cinap
>
Works.
On Mon Jun 3 08:00:20 EDT 2013, arn...@skeeve.com wrote:
> Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>
> > And the consequences of not freeing a few bytes of memory, in a command
> > which will exit a few microseconds later, would be ... ?
>
> The Code Correctness Police come and collect you an
Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> And the consequences of not freeing a few bytes of memory, in a command
> which will exit a few microseconds later, would be ... ?
The Code Correctness Police come and collect you and force you to
program on Windows...
:-)
Arnold
> bad taste.
I agree - better style is to free memory always, or never. But the
choice might not be as obvious as one first thinks.
On Jun 3, 2013 6:49 AM, "Richard Miller" <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> And the consequences of not freeing a few bytes of memory, in a command
> which will exit a few microseconds later, would be ... ?
>
>
bad taste.
>> its /n/sources/patch/testolder, also leaks dir in the case:
>>
>> if(rel)
>> n = time(0) - n;
>> if(n < 0)
>> return 0; <- HERE
>> r = dir->mtime < n;
>>
>> free(dir);
>> return r;
And the consequences of not freeing a few bytes of memor
On Sun Jun 2 17:31:05 EDT 2013, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote:
> its /n/sources/patch/testolder, also leaks dir in the case:
>
> if(rel)
> n = time(0) - n;
> if(n < 0)
> return 0; <- HERE
> r = dir->mtime < n;
>
> free(dir);
> return r;
its /n/sources/patch/testolder, also leaks dir in the case:
if(rel)
n = time(0) - n;
if(n < 0)
return 0; <- HERE
r = dir->mtime < n;
free(dir);
return r;
--
cinap
yup. i think it's a bug:
/n/sources/patch/older
/n/atom/patch/older
- erik
>
>
>kb=4096
>
> say what!? fittingly, it's unused.
>
>
i'd suppose it was probably going to reduce the buffer size on a
wirelessly-connected ipaq
> some rc scripts seem to assume that test -w should work on
> directories. examples are /rc/bin/lp which tests for /tmp
> being writable. another is /rc/bin/juke that tests on
> /mnt/juke.
in both cases, the test returning the wrong result won't easily
be noticed. lp just mounts somthing else on
Obvious solution, switch to reading comp.os.plan9 and sending replies to
the list :-)
On Apr 16, 2012 11:48 AM, wrote:
> can't receive mail from 9fans anymore. but can i
> still send?
>
> --
> cinap
>
>
got it clear.
--
iphone kbd. excuse typos :)
On Apr 16, 2012, at 6:46 PM, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote:
> can't receive mail from 9fans anymore. but can i
> still send?
>
> --
> cinap
On Apr 16, 2012 2:48 PM, wrote:
>
> can't receive mail from 9fans anymore. but can i
> still send?
>
> --
> cinap
>
Yes.
--
Veety
Hello,
On 2008/09/11, at 11:38, Russ Cox wrote:
there are certainly better ways to do this, but this works:
as does /bin/mtime.
I didn't know this command.
thanks russ and erik.
Kenji Arisawa
> there are certainly better ways to do this, but this works:
as does /bin/mtime.
> > But then there is = and != for strings (for example), so this argument
> > is thin :-).
>
> if we can easily get modified time of a file in the format of UNIX time,
> where "easily" means "in the set of plan 9 commands".
there are certainly better ways to do this, but this works:
- erik
#!/
Hello,
On 2008/09/11, at 1:15, Gorka Guardiola wrote:
yes, but !older is the same as younger or equal.
yes.
But then there is = and != for strings (for example), so this argument
is thin :-).
if we can easily get modified time of a file in the format of UNIX time,
where "easily" means "in
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Juan Céspedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused, but what Kenji said is that:
>
>> "test" command of plan 9 has a operator "older", the usage is:
>>test f -older t
>> where f is a file and t is a time.
>
> If f is a file ant t is a *time*, you
Maybe I'm confused, but what Kenji said is that:
> "test" command of plan 9 has a operator "older", the usage is:
>test f -older t
> where f is a file and t is a time.
If f is a file ant t is a *time*, you can't do test t -older f
Juan
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:38 AM, ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Kenji Arisawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > "test" command of plan 9 has a operator "older", the usage is:
> >test f -older t
> > where f is a file and t is a time.
a < b = !(a > b) + (a = b)
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Kenji Arisawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> "test" command of plan 9 has a operator "older", the usage is:
>>test f -older t
>> where f is a file and t is a time.
>> however the command does not have "newer" oper
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Kenji Arisawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> "test" command of plan 9 has a operator "older", the usage is:
>test f -older t
> where f is a file and t is a time.
> however the command does not have "newer" operator.
> why?
>
If a < b, and you want
43 matches
Mail list logo
