From: Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au>
Subject: Re: doc access?
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:18:27 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877k43vt0c.fsf@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87d6ectdsn.fsf@zip.com.au> (Kevin Ryde's message of "Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:49:12 +1000")
I wrote:
>
> * posix.texi (File System): In access?, reword a bit, clarify real
> versus effective ID handling, add an example of that, and recommend
> against access tests in library functions.
I toned it down a bit and checked it in,
- Scheme Procedure: access? path how
- C Function: scm_access (path, how)
Test accessibility of a file under the real UID and GID of the
calling process. The return is `#t' if PATH exists and the
permissions requested by HOW are all allowed, or `#f' if not.
HOW is an integer which is one of the following values, or a
bitwise-OR (`logior') of multiple values.
- Variable: R_OK
Test for read permission.
- Variable: W_OK
Test for write permission.
- Variable: X_OK
Test for execute permission.
- Variable: F_OK
Test for existence of the file. This is implied by each of
the other tests, so there's no need to combine it with them.
It's important to note that `access?' does not simply indicate
what will happen on attempting to read or write a file. In normal
circumstances it does, but in a set-UID or set-GID program it
doesn't because `access?' tests the real ID, whereas an open or
execute attempt uses the effective ID.
A program which will never run set-UID/GID can ignore the
difference between real and effective IDs, but for maximum
generality, especially in library functions, it's generally best
not to use `access?' to predict the result of an open or execute,
instead simply attempt that and catch any exception.
The main use for `access?' is to let a set-UID/GID program
determine what the invoking user would have been allowed to do,
without the greater (or perhaps lesser) privileges afforded by the
effective ID. For more on this, see *Note Testing File Access:
(libc)Testing File Access.
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-21 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-07 22:49 doc access? Kevin Ryde
2003-09-21 1:18 ` Kevin Ryde [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877k43vt0c.fsf@zip.com.au \
--to=user42@zip.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).