From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] permissions
Message-ID: <20011018161204.C17691@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <200110181400.f9IE0sd13978@new-york.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200110181400.f9IE0sd13978@new-york.lcs.mit.edu>; from Russ Cox on Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 10:00:53AM -0400
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:12:08 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0aae47b4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 10:00:53AM -0400, Russ Cox wrote:
> 
> >From intro(5), ``A walk in a directory is regarded
> as executing the directory, not reading it.''  Note it
> says ``in'' and not ``into''.  The directory you were in
> was still chmod +x.  I bet you can't cd .. back
> out of your 664 directory.

Well, I'll be damned.  It is subtle and I'm not sure I like it that
way, I can't quite see what purpose it serves.  What you're saying
is that I may be able to create a new directory in the 664 directory
and, irrespective of _its_ permissions not walk into it.

I guess I'll do some learning once I can think of a reason to reboot
the file server :-)

Thanks, Russ.

++L