Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?

From: Kasper Dupont (kasperd@daimi.au.dk)
Date: 06/12/02


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



Relevant Pages

  • Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?
    ... Tim Haynes wrote: ... AFAIK the executable bits on sockets has no ... But it seems like sockets by default are created ... You don't specify any permitions when creating a socket through ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?
    ... AFAIK the executable bits on sockets has no ... >> permitions 777 and then just modified by the users umask. ... >> specify any permitions when creating a socket through the bind system ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?
    ... AFAIK the executable bits on sockets has no ... >> permitions 777 and then just modified by the users umask. ... >> specify any permitions when creating a socket through the bind system ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)