From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 29 17:30:28 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF99E106564A for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766208FC0A for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S2nMA-0006x4-QG for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:30:27 +0100 Received: from np-19-75.prenet.pl ([np-19-75.prenet.pl]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:30:26 +0100 Received: from jb.1234abcd by np-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:30:26 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: jb Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <20120228092244.GB48977@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120228162447.GB58311@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120229072458.GA95427@DataIX.net> <20120229085716.GA66484@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <1330527621.1023.27.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <20120229164115.GB64201@DataIX.net> <1330535893.1023.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1) Subject: Re: negative group permissions? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:30:28 -0000 Ian Lepore 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