Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #14744

Re: [minor] umask 400 causes here-{doc,string} failure

From Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org>
Newsgroups gnu.bash.bug
Subject Re: [minor] umask 400 causes here-{doc,string} failure
Date 2018-10-29 09:53 -0400
Message-ID <mailman.3006.1540821224.1284.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References <20180311151742.GB6450@chaz.gmail.com> <d86f6764-bc53-834b-0ce2-ad3155e108a8@iki.fi> <af58fa36-1444-964b-1de7-21b5abf4ffc3@inlv.org> <46a9261c-f21b-14c8-93fd-db7d7fdfdf78@case.edu>

Show all headers | View raw


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 09:30:00PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> That doesn't work for the same reason as discussed in
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-03/msg00074.html.
> It's unlikely that someone will set his umask to 400 and expect no ill
> effects, but I suppose it's better not to fail in the face of that kind
> of behavior.

I still maintain that the "umask 400" is most likely a user error.
The user probably wanted a umask that would cause all of the files to
have 0400 permissions.  Such a umask would be 0377, not 0400.

A umask that denies read permission to the owner of the file but leaves
the file world writable is simply not rational.

Bash's behavior seems acceptable to me:

wooledg:~$ bash -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello'
bash: cannot create temp file for here-document: Permission denied
wooledg:~$ bash-5.0-beta -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello'
bash-5.0-beta: cannot create temp file for here-document: Permission denied

But if you want to follow ksh's lead, I would also find that acceptable:

wooledg:~$ ksh -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello'
hello

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [minor] umask 400 causes here-{doc,string} failure Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-10-29 09:53 -0400

csiph-web