Re: x bit for dirs: misfeature?
vda (vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua)
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 17:03:40 +0000
On Monday 19 November 2001 14:46, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, vda wrote:
> > Everytime I do 'chmod -R a+rX dir' and wonder are there
> > any executables which I don't want to become world executable,
> > I think "Whatta hell with this x bit meaning 'can browse'
> > for dirs?! Who was that clever guy who invented that? Grrrr"
> >
> > Isn't r sufficient? Can we deprecate x for dirs?
> > I.e. make it a mirror of r: you set r, you see x set,
> > you clear r, you see x cleared, set/clear x = nop?
>
> See UNIX FAQ. Ability to read != ability to lookup.
>
> Trivial example: you have a directory with a bunch of subdirectories.
> You want owners of subdirectories to see them. You don't want them
> to _know_ about other subdirectories.
Security through obscurity, that is.
Do you have even a single dir on your boxes with r!=x?
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/