From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eplet.mira.net.au (eplet.mira.net.au [203.9.190.17]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id GAA12541 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 06:54:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by eplet.mira.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA09766 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 06:00:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA07044; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:51:52 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:43:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Zefram Message-Id: <27987.199607161942@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [[ -x ]] and root To: colin@fuligin.loni.ucla.edu (Colin Holmes) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:41:59 +0100 (BST) Cc: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <9607161057.ZM17052@fuligin.loni.ucla.edu> from "Colin Holmes" at Jul 16, 96 10:57:21 am X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]7819.10 X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"Wfn6q1.0.eb1.k3_wn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/301 X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu >Are you confident that zsh uses access(2) in its test -x >implementation? That would be a mistake, I believe. Red herring alert. I mentioned access(2) specifically because that's the *neatest* way to test it. In Linux, the bug was not in access() itself, but in the generic permission-checking code. That code is used for access(), and also for all the other permissions checking. If that code is misbehaving, access() would be one of the more directly affected syscalls. That said, zsh *does* in fact use access(2) for condition checking. -zefram