[Development] [QLockFile] Whether it is reasonable to use 0644 permission ?

[Simon Hausmann]

Here you go :)


https://codereview.qt-project.org/166278



Simon

________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces+simon.hausmann=qt.io at qt-project.org> on behalf of Denis Shienkov <denis.shienkov at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:34:03 AM
To: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] [QLockFile] Whether it is reasonable to use 0644 permission ?

So, as I understand, you agree that QLockFile should be fixed.. Who will
produce a patch? Thiago, maybe you can do it? :)

PS: Because I do not understand an idea with the umask... I simply would
replace 0644 with 0666 in sources... and nothing more..

28.07.2016 0:23, Thiago Macieira пишет:
> On quarta-feira, 27 de julho de 2016 22:15:45 PDT Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> If you don't have permission to delete it, then you're going to have a
>>> problem to drop your own lock if you steal the lock by writing to the
>>> file.
>> So this means that the permission should be 0644 to prevent that from
>> happening. Thus, I don't understand how you get to:
> The permission of the file is irrelevant. The permission of the dir is the one
> that matters.
>
>>> Either way, the mode in the call should be 0666.
> Because that will result in 0644 or 0664, depending on the user's umask. The
> correct modes for creat() and open() should be only 0600, 0700, 0666 and 0777.
> Anything else is suspicious and probably wrong. Like this case.
>

_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20160728/a2d8ba6b/attachment.html>