From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id e6f94b6d for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B9B889BA91; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:34:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036129BA08; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 639919BA08; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from viclamta06p.bpe.bigpond.com (viclamta06p.bpe.bigpond.com [203.38.21.70]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36F859B42B for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp.telstra.com ([10.10.26.4]) by viclafep06p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au with ESMTP id <20190807213349.LLOF27912.viclafep06p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au@smtp.telstra.com> for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:49 +1000 X-RG-Spam: Unknown X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudduvddgudeiudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfupfevtfgpvffgnffuvffttedpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvufgjkfhffgggtgesthdttddttdervdenucfhrhhomhepffgrvhgvucfjohhrshhfrghllhcuoegurghvvgeshhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgqeenucfkphepuddutddrudeguddrudelfedrvdeffeenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheprghnvghurhhinhdrhhhorhhsfhgrlhhlrdhorhhgpdhinhgvthepuddutddrudeguddrudelfedrvdeffedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeeouggrvhgvsehhohhrshhfrghllhdrohhrgheqpdhrtghpthhtohepoehtuhhhshesthhuhhhsrdhorhhgqeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean X-RG-VS-CLASS: clean Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (110.141.193.233) by smtp.telstra.com (5.8.335) id 5D48A2870064B368 for tuhs@tuhs.org; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:49 +1000 Received: from aneurin.horsfall.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x77LXmRe087039 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:48 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by aneurin.horsfall.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id x77LXlWc087036 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:48 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from dave@horsfall.org) X-Authentication-Warning: aneurin.horsfall.org: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:33:47 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society In-Reply-To: <40c92e85142fe7e3@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: References: <1564954057.6926.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> <40c92e85142fe7e3@orthanc.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (BSF 287 2018-06-16) X-GPG-Public-Key: http://www.horsfall.org/gpgkey.pub X-GPG-Fingerprint: 05B4 FFBC 0218 B438 66E0 587B EF46 7357 EF5E F58B X-Home-Page: http://www.horsfall.org/ X-Witty-Saying: "chmod 666 the_mode_of_the_beast" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [TUHS] Set-uid shell scripts X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, 6 Aug 2019, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> Just to extend this thread a bit more, when did the set[ug]id bit start >> getting turned off if the file was overwritten? > > I'm pretty sure that's been the case since the dawn of time. Hmmm... I have this vague memory of V5 (which I only used for a couple of months before we got V6) not clearing that bit, but after all these years my memory is starting to fail me :-( > It was certainly the case in every System V (release 0 and beyond) I > worked with, along with many BSDs derivatives (SunOS 3+, Ultrix, etc). > (And Xenix, which had it's own insanity that I now think selinux is > trying to inflict on me.) I've always thought that Xenix was insane to start with... Then again, my first experience with it was on a 286... Now, when porting Unify, should I use large memory model here or small memory model? Crazy. > This has been documented in chown(2) for as long as I can remember, so > that's a good place to start if you want to dig back through the various > source trees. I don't have access to the sources right now, but I'll take your word for it; it was just a passing thought. -- Dave