Re: unhide reallocarray

2022-08-30 Thread RVP
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, Thomas Klausner wrote: So I'd like to put it outside of the _OPENBSD_SOURCE #ifdef so it is available without _OPENBSD_SOURCE being defined. Comments? Go for it. (Had intended to ask for exactly that myself some time back to prevent PR #56746 from happening again.) -RVP

unhide reallocarray

2022-08-30 Thread Thomas Klausner
hi! Some years ago, NetBSD got reallocarray. But it is hidden in an ifdef. (from stdlib.h) #ifdef _OPENBSD_SOURCE ... void*reallocarray(void *, size_t, size_t); #endif reallocarray() will now be part of the next POSIX release: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1218 So I'd like to pu

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:18:47 -0400 (EDT) > From: Mouse > > >> Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc > >> (that have hard links in / too, for the single user mode i guess) > >> are not writable? > > Aside from applications like vi rm mv etc (probably more) which >

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Robert Elz wrote in <15785.1661861...@jacaranda.noi.kre.to>: ... |I have no idea... like I said, the owner bits (except x) for |a root owned file are almost meaningless. "Yeah". ... --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Mouse
>> Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc >> (that have hard links in / too, for the single user mode i guess) >> are not writable? > Aside from applications like vi rm mv etc (probably more) which > require a slight bit more effort if the file has no write permission, >

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Valery Ushakov
[the bsd.link.mk part diverted to tech-toolchain] On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:27:34 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc > (that have hard links in / too, for the single user mode i guess) are > not writable? So apparently the fact that

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:46:18 +0300 From:Valery Ushakov Message-ID: | Exactly my point. So why do we inflict that on people (ourselves | included)? I have no idea... like I said, the owner bits (except x) for a root owned file are almost meaningless. I didn't

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Steffen Nurpmeso
Valery Ushakov wrote in : |On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:38:02 +0700, Robert Elz wrote: | |> Date:Tue, 30 Aug 2022 02:27:33 +0300 |> From:Valery Ushakov |> Message-ID: |> |>| Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc |>| (that have hard

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Taylor R Campbell
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 08:38:02 +0700 > From: Robert Elz > > Date:Tue, 30 Aug 2022 02:27:33 +0300 > From:Valery Ushakov > Message-ID: > > | Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc > | (that have hard links in / too, for the single u

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Valery Ushakov
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:38:02 +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Tue, 30 Aug 2022 02:27:33 +0300 > From:Valery Ushakov > Message-ID: > > | Is there any particular reason why /root/.profile and /root/.cshrc > | (that have hard links in / too, for the single user

Re: Permissions of the root dot files

2022-08-30 Thread Edgar Fuß
> what difference does the user 'w' (or 'r' ... 'x' does matter) permission > bit really make on a root owned file? To me, it implies that the file should not be written regardless of the fact that it technically can.