Re: significance of "nobody" ownership permission?

From: Tim Haynes (usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)
Date: 06/12/02 

From: Tim Haynes <usenet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk>
Date: 12 Jun 2002 16:10:15 +0100

Kasper Dupont <kasperd@daimi.au.dk> writes:

[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.

Yeah, that makes sense. Wasn't there a phase in which the kernel produced a
default umask of 000 as well, thereby causing problems with initscripts?
(At least I vaguely remember this happening in Debian; a trawl of the bug
system there would probably reveal more detail.)

~Tim 

-- 
The light of the world keeps shining,       |piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
Bright in the primal glow                   |http://spodzone.org.uk/

Quantcast