Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:02:50 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: standards/86484: [PATCH] mkfifo(1) uses wrong permissions Message-ID: <20050923085442.J34322@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200509230436.j8N4aj1C018943@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200509230436.j8N4aj1C018943@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > Synopsis: [PATCH] mkfifo(1) uses wrong permissions > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-standards->rwatson > Responsible-Changed-By: rodrigc > Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Sep 23 04:35:12 GMT 2005 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Robert has been working a lot with FIFO's lately.... > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=86484 Our man page documents mkfifo(1) as interacting with umasks in two ways: (1) if -m is not used, then the requested mode is 0666 as influenced by the umask, and (2) if -m is used, the umask is ignored. In my basic testing here, it appeared to operate correctly on FreeBSD 7.x-CURRENT: peppercorn:/tmp/tmp> umask 22 peppercorn:/tmp/tmp> foreach mode (0600 0660 0666 0400 0440 0444 0200 0220 0222) foreach? mkfifo -m $mode $mode foreach? end peppercorn:/tmp/tmp> mkfifo nomode peppercorn:/tmp/tmp> ls -l total 12 drwxr-xr-x 2 robert wheel 512 Sep 23 08:59 ./ drwxrwxrwt 16 root wheel 10240 Sep 23 08:49 ../ p-w------- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0200| p-w--w---- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0220| p-w--w--w- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0222| pr-------- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0400| pr--r----- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0440| pr--r--r-- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0444| prw------- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0600| prw-rw---- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0660| prw-rw-rw- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 0666| prw-r--r-- 1 robert wheel 0 Sep 23 08:59 nomode| So on face value, the behavior of the application matches the specification in mkfifo(1). The real question is whether mkfifo(1) matches some other important specification, like POSIX. Since I don't have POSIX.2 on hand, I can't comment on that. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050923085442.J34322>