On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:14 AM Roberto E. Vargas Caballero
<k0ga_AT_shike2.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Quoth Tavian Barnes <tavianator_AT_tavianator.com>:
> > _AT_@ -524,7 +525,10 @@ get_perm_arg(char *argv[], union extra *extra)
> > else
> > p->exact = 1;
> >
> > - p->mode = parsemode(*argv, 0, 0);
> > + mask = umask(0);
> > + umask(mask);
> > +
> > + p->mode = parsemode(*argv, 0, mask);
> >
>
> I don't think this is correct. The results of -perm should not depend
> of the process umask. Why do you think -perm should use umask(2)?
POSIX bug 1392 clarified this:
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392
Received on Mon Mar 17 2025 - 13:08:51 CET