> > Right. On the other hand, doing always chmod before chown on Solaris
> > would also work, if I understand things correctly.
>
> But chown sometimes fiddles with setuid and setgid bits, and when it
> does that, that would introduce a bug.
That is true (unless the user has special privileges).
On 07/10/2013 12:54 AM, Vladimir Marek wrote:
> But the chown
> will be executed anyway just in a different sequence, so I don't see the
> difference.
The difference is that the setuid or setgid bits will be cleared
by the chown, which means they'll be incorrect in the final version
of the file.
