[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
[bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25 |
Date: |
Sun, 9 Oct 2005 08:38:50 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050729 Netscape/8.0.3.3 |
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #14619 (project findutils):
You had a slight typo in comment #9 - with umask 0022, the mode "+r"
evaluates as 0200 (or perhaps you meant umask 0002, to get 0220), from the
point of view of chmod. But your doc patch looked nice.
See my note 1 at the end of comment #3. POSIX has an ambiguity on whether
the mode bits of -perm obey umask on + and - and ignore it on =, or whether
it ignores umask for all three of +, -, and =. I believe findutils' current
behavior of ignoring umask in all three cases is probably okay, but it is
probably worth a question to the austin group to see if our interpretation is
correct. I note also that in Solaris 8, find obeyed the umask (although there
were other places where -perm was non-POSIX compliant, so it is not really the
best comparison point). I don't have access to Solaris 10 or any other
implementation of find that claims to be compliant, for comparison purposes.
Also, I realized that I was slightly mistaken in comment #3 - "x" is not a
valid mode ('x' is only valid when proceeded with an op), so -perm +x in the
older versions of find should not have worked, and -perm /x does not work
now. However, if it is desired, find could treat mode "x" as an extension to
POSIX, as equivalent to "+x", so that -perm /x could be shorthand for -perm
/+x.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=14619>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/03
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Ph. Marek, 2005/10/04
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/09
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25,
Eric Blake <=
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/15
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/15
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Ph. Marek, 2005/10/07
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/07
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/07
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/10
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/10