Hi, Quoth Tavian Barnes <taviana...@tavianator.com>: > --- > @@ -524,7 +525,10 @@ get_perm_arg(char *argv[], union extra *extra) > else > p->exact = 1; > > - p->mode = parsemode(*argv, 0, 0); > + mask = umask(0); > + umask(mask); > + > + p->mode = parsemode(*argv, 0, mask); > > return argv; > } > --
I don't think this is correct. The results of -perm should not depend of the process umask. Why do you think -perm should use umask(2)? Kind regards,
