[SSSD] Review of umask() in SSSD
Petr Cech
pcech at redhat.com
Thu Oct 1 12:06:50 UTC 2015
On 10/01/2015 01:19 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:38:49PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
>> Bump.
>
Thanks for reply, Jakub.
> Why was 077 changed for 0177?
This change is something, which I think was discussed earlier in this
thread.
# pcech:
# > I would like to ask you if we would like to use 0077 or 0177 as our very
# > restrictive mask. I see that our code is not consistent on this
question. I
# > know the difference is small, but it is.
#
# jhrozek:
# I guess 0177 should be used.
I think that we work only with files, not with directories, I should
check it again.
So, if it is risky, I will changed it. :-)
>
> About the name -- shouldn't we say just "SSS_DFL_UMASK" ? We are a
> security project, therefore restrictive by default :-)
You're right, we are security project by default, so I changed the
constant name.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-REFACTOR-Review-of-umask-function.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 8642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20151001/15cfd680/attachment.bin>
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list