From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:15:13 +0200 From: Lucio de Re lucio@proxima.alt.za Subject: [9fans] Plan9 permissions Topicbox-Message-UUID: 644ef608-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Message-ID: <19970915151513.wCAn03L-dbh_Z5u4crRiWMLddzrsJ6HZuJXVIVKc2Ew@z> > > i don't know. that implies that the log process is not > running as you, i.e. is running as none or another user, like "upas". > if another user, then make that user the owner of the file. > if "none", think strongly about the append-only flag. > the editors warn about that, and it encourages others not > to edit the file either. > Russ, you're missing a point here. On the one hand, quite correctly, the owner has one "permission" bit no-one else can alter, namely ownership. On the other, making group and other inclusive does not gain you anything, it is better to make them exclusive, as Unix does, so that you can stop the owner from accessing something while allowing arbitrary users, than to have no means whatsoever to achieve this objective. There's nothing compulsory about it, nobody has to use the permissions in this fashion, but removing the facility by opting for the intuitively obvious approach, decreases the flexibility of the tool. >>From the BSD man pages: [EACCES] Permission bits of the file mode do not permit the request- ed access, or search permission is denied on a component of the path prefix. The owner of a file has permission checked with respect to the ``owner'' read, write, and exe- cute mode bits, members of the file's group other than the owner have permission checked with respect to the ``group'' mode bits, and all others have permissions checked with re- spect to the ``other'' mode bits. Note the "members of the file's group _other_than_the_owner_" and the implicit similar exception in the "other". This reads precisely as David would have it. -- Lucio de Re (lucio@proxima.alt.za) Disclaimer: I'm working at getting my opinions to agree with me.