Re: [9front] notes on user none

[magma698hfsp273p9f@icebubble.org]

ori@eigenstate.org writes:

>> Um.  What if the file is owned by "none", but chmod 0400?  The u+r would
>> suggest that it would be readable.  But, if only world permissions are
>> checked, the o-r suggests that it would be be unreadable.
>
> Yes, that's the "not fooling yourself" part.
>
> if none checked permissions as normal, you could
> simply do
>
> 	auth/none cat file
>
> as any user. if none can read it, so can anyon else.

The point is taken, but shouldn't a file owned by none u+r be readable
by none?  I can see how one might fool oneself if a file owned by none
is chmod 0004.  "auth/none cat" can still read it.  But if it's chmod
0400, I would think it should be readable by none.  If you ONLY consult
the world permissions, you're still "fooling yourself"... just in the
opposite direction.

To me, it makes perfect sense for a file to be readable by none if any
of its user, group, or world permissions grant read permission.  That's
the way permissions normally work on Plan 9.  Creating an exception to
those (otherwise regular) rules seems like it's CREATING a way to fool
yourself.