Hi,
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 08:08:51AM -0400, Tavian Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:14 AM Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
> > 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)?
>
> POSIX bug 1392 clarified this:
> https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392
That link is very confusing to me:
The changes to file mode bits shall be applied to a template
instead of to any files. The template shall initially have
all file mode bits cleared.
and later:
to:
find . −perm −o+w,+s
prints (−print is assumed) the names of all files in or
below the current directory, with all of the file permission
bits S_ISUID, S_ISGID, and S_IWOTH set, regardless of the
value of the file creation mask. (Note that the file creation
mask is only specified for the file permission bits, and
not S_ISUID, S_ISGID or S_ISVTX.)
So, with these two paragraphs I would say that the creation mask is
not used, but later it says:
On page 2801 after line 92130 insert a new example #4 and
renumber the remaining examples: The following command:
find . −perm −+w
prints (−print is assumed) the names of all files in or
below the current directory, with S_IWUSR set if the file
creation mask does not have S_IWUSR set (otherwise the
S_IWUSR bit is ignored), S_IWGRP set if the file creation
mask does not have S_IWGRP set (otherwise S_IWGRP is ignored),
and S_IWOTH set if the file creation mask does not have
S_IWOTH set (otherwise S_IWOTH is ignored).
where it says that we have to use the creation mask. What is the
difference between both examples? I understand that we have to use
always the creation mask excepts in the case of S_ISUID, S_ISGID
and S_ISVTX because they are not part of the creation mask. In that
case, the wording is very confusing.
Am I right about what it says? In that case then I think your patch
makes sense (and POSIX doesn't xD).
Kind regards,
