On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 10:30, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
No, the other remaining question is why you think whatever "foo" the shell spits out to a file should be executable by default? One would hope that a bit of thought would go into the creation of an executable file, whether a binary or a script. Why make this the default, when the majority of regular files on a file system don't contain executable code?
Of course some thought should go into it but thats not the point. I just don't agree that just because we can't think of a good reason to do it on our system that it shouldn't be possible for anyone.
But a umask of 133 would turn off execute (i.e. search or traversal) permission on new directories by default.
Which is another flaw in umask. It should be:
Umask [ Umask file octal-mask [directory octal-mask]]
(Which is how it is implemented in proftpd)
So, either you're stuck manually turning off execute permission on the majority of regular files you create, or you're stuck manually turning on execute permission on all the directories you create.
Wouldn't a default of 700 for directories make the most sense for the majority of users anyhow?
This makes more sense that having to manually chmod the few executable script files you're likely to create, after thinking about whether the code really is ready to execute?
I agree that this method makes more sense given that there is no way to specify file masks and directory masks separately.