Subject: Re: kern/3787: adosfs interprets execute protection on directories as S_IX*
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: Michael van Elst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/25/1997 19:56:53
> Maybe make it a mount time option?
if that's a vote I say NO.
adosfs does not know anything about a directory 'access' permission.
It doesn't have a 'read' permission either that is compatible with
UNIX semantics. You _cannot_ (read: there is no API) read a directory
without doing the equivalent of stat()'ing every entry. So a read
permission is always an access permission. Enforcing foreign semantics
just because there happens to be a 'similar' bit that could be interpreted
_only_ causes problems. What do you want to do when the permission is
"missing" because of such enforced semantics, especially while you
cannot even do a chmod() in the current read-only implementation (nor
would there be a transparent interpretation of semantics in the
Michael van Elst
> - "It was at that point I realised there might be a chance for myself as a
> - caring human being. Unable to decide whether to feel hopeful or disgusted,
> - I chose both and opened a bottle of wine to celebrate"
> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Todd Vierling wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > : adosfs translates AmigaOS protection flags into UNIX mode bits.
> > : PROTECTION_READ becomes S_IRUSR, PROTECTION_WRITE becomes S_IWUSR
> > : and PROTECTION_EXECUTE becomes S_IXUSR (and similar for group
> > : and other permissions).
> > : For files this is a correct interpretation of semantics, however for
> > : directories this is not true. AmigaOS ignores the PROTECTION_EXECUTE
> > : bit on directories completely. There is no difference between a
> > : readable directory and an accessible directory as in UNIX.
> > : As a result a directory without PROTECTION_EXECUTE can be used under
> > : AmigaOS but not under NetBSD.
> > I'm not so sure this should be forced (directories +x). There are a couple
> > filesystem patches I have sitting around that add access privilege to
> > directories, as well as a third-party addition to MultiUserFileSystem.
> > I vote this stays as is. chmod +x the directory if you want to access it ;)
> > =====
> > == Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Business firstname.lastname@example.org) Foo-bar-baz! ==
> > == System administrator/technician, Internet Access Group, Orlando Florida ==
> > == Dialups in Orange, Volusia, Lake, Osceola counties - http://www.iag.net ==
Michael van Elst
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."