Robert Elz wrote:
> I agree this is mostly harmless (though annoying) - but leads me to
> ponder whether or not we should have a directory permission setting
> which would allow anyone to remove their own files from a directory,
> but not create any (assuming they don't also have write permission
Mouse wrote:
> > [I]f you use 'syslogd -u user', then syslogd can't create a pidfile
> > because that is done post-setuid.
>
> What is the intended use case for -u?
To run syslogd as an unprivileged user rather than as
root. It starts up as root to open the log sockets,
then changes euid to the
Hello,
20 years ago, I filed bin/27309. In short, if you use
'syslogd -u user', then syslogd can't create a pidfile
because that is done post-setuid.
My suggested fix (diff attached) is to create the
pidfile and chown it before changing UIDs. The
subsequent pidfile(3) call will happily take ove
Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
> > I'd say -1 is the option for "the output is meant to read
> > programmatically" and it's antonym is -C for "the output for human
> > consumption". If ls outputs to a pipe it infers -1 aut
Valery Ushakov wrote:
> I'd say -1 is the option for "the output is meant to read
> programmatically" and it's antonym is -C for "the output for human
> consumption". If ls outputs to a pipe it infers -1 automatically
> unless -C is specified (cf. "command ls | more"). The total is "for
> human
Hi,
It looks like `ls -1s` (single-column + '-s') does not
print the "total" summary. The manual page describes
both flags as follows:
-1 (The numeric digit "one"). Force output
to be one entry per line. This is the default
when output is not to a terminal.
-s Displa
Mouse wrote:
> > On NetBSD and macOS, lseek(2) on a tty succeeds:
>
> > if (lseek(STDIN_FILENO, 0, SEEK_CUR) == -1 )
>
> > On Linux, this fails.
>
> > I'm trying to think of why seeking on a terminal would make sense.
> > Anybody have an idea?
>
> Quoting from lseek(2) on a handy machi
Hi,
On NetBSD and macOS, lseek(2) on a tty succeeds:
int main() {
if (lseek(STDIN_FILENO, 0, SEEK_CUR) == -1 )
fprintf(stderr, "cannot seek\n");
}
$ ./a.out
Robert Elz wrote:
> Most of the rest of this proposal is (a disaster) - it is far too
> complicated with two many pitfalls, for very little rational benefit.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-Jan
Martin Husemann wrote:
> How about instead adding an option that sets the first name explicitly
> and keeps the "abort on failure" behaviour?
Setting the first name is a good alternative. I'll
have to see how that works with specifying a prefix
(e.g., user specified a first file that doesn't ma
Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> Definitely O_EXCL and EEXIST, yes. But we still can fall into a hole
> in the sequence, fill it, and skip over the remaining part(s), thus
> interleaving our new and the preexisting files.
Ah, you mean if I currently have
$ ls
xaa xad xae
and then run
$ split -n 4
Jan Schaumann wrote:
> The attached diff adds a flag "-c" (mnemonic "create,
> don't overwrite" or "continue where you left off"):
Ugh, and once more without a race condition.
-Jan
Index: split.1
=
Hello,
Currently, split(1) will clobber any existing output
files:
$ split file; ls
xaa xab xac xad
$ split second-file; ls
xaa xab xac xad xae xaf
I often would like for it to pick up where it left off
and continue creating files in the sequence. Right
now, there is no good way for me to yield
ignat...@cs.uni-bonn.de wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 05:45:15PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>
> > +* sfxlen by one, thereby yielding an additional two characters
> > +* and allowing all output files to sort such that 'cat *' yields
> &g
Hello,
When running split(1) such that it would require more
files than the default suffix-length would allow, it
currently errors out with 'too many files'.
For example, if I have a file with 1 million lines and
run
split file
then split(1) will generate 676 files 'xaa' through
'xzz' and then
Hello,
On macOS, the strcpy(3) manual page contains the
following "Admonishment" prominently displayed
immediately after the Synopsis:
YOU SHOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY USE strlcpy() INSTEAD.
See "Examples" below.
(Likewise for strcat(3).)
I find this a rather effective way of discouraging its
use es
Robert Elz wrote:
> In all of this we can adopt the attitude "all the users are morons and
> cannot make a decision, or configure things even if they knew what they
> wanted to configure, so we will decide for them" which some other systems
> are doing.
>
> That certainly makes it easier for the
Hello,
Picking up an old inquiry from wiz@ from... 2013:
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2013/12/04/msg008256.html
It looks like NetBSD still ships a password file with
toor and root having the same shell, which seems to
defeat the point of the toor account.
(FreeBSD currently ships
18 matches
Mail list logo
