Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:30:18 +0000 (UTC) From: jb <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: negative group permissions? Message-ID: <loom.20120229T182608-923@post.gmane.org> References: <20120228092244.GB48977@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <loom.20120228T155607-690@post.gmane.org> <20120228162447.GB58311@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120229072458.GA95427@DataIX.net> <20120229085716.GA66484@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <loom.20120229T111136-48@post.gmane.org> <loom.20120229T141955-30@post.gmane.org> <1330527621.1023.27.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <loom.20120229T171016-473@post.gmane.org> <20120229164115.GB64201@DataIX.net> <1330535893.1023.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian Lepore <freebsd <at> damnhippie.dyndns.org> writes: > ... > Again, the problem here seems to be the use of 0661 in the lpr program, > not the idea of negative permissions, not the new scan for the use of > negative permissions. This will go away after the fix below is applied. > It's just an old bug in an old program which used > to be harmless and now is "mostly harmless". Instead of trying to "fix" > it by causing the new scan to ignore it, why don't we fix it by fixing > the program? (I'd submit a patch but it's a 1-character change -- it's > not clear to me a patch would be easier for a commiter to handle than > just finding and changing the only occurrance of "0661" in lpr.c.) > Yes, that's what we suggested, in PR filed as well. Let's change lpr.c so that the .seq create permission is 0664. jb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?loom.20120229T182608-923>