Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?
From: Kasper Dupont (kasperd@daimi.au.dk)Date: 06/12/02
- Next message: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Previous message: PaX Team: "Re: Why a stack with exec flag?"
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Kasper Dupont <kasperd@daimi.au.dk> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:50:11 +0200
Tim Haynes wrote:
>
> > /tmp/.esd/socket
>
> Why does that need to be executable?!
It probably doesn't. AFAIK the executable bits on sockets has no
significance. But it seems like sockets by default are created
with permitions 777 and then just modified by the users umask.
You don't specify any permitions when creating a socket through
the bind system call.
-- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet. For sending spam use mailto:razor-report@daimi.au.dk
- Next message: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Previous message: PaX Team: "Re: Why a stack with exec flag?"
- In reply to: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Next in thread: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Reply: Tim Haynes: "Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
