[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