[openib-general] [PATCH] osm: 'chmod' on Windows

[Yevgeny Kliteynik]

Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 18:28 Sun 26 Nov     , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>> Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
>>> On 17:51 Sun 26 Nov     , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>>>> Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
>>>>> On 15:22 Sun 26 Nov     , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>>>>>> Fixing to match 'chmod' implementation on Windows.
>>>>>> Note that on Windows 'chmod' there's no such thing 
>>>>>> as user/group/all permissions - the permissions are 
>>>>>> aways for 'all'.
>>>>>> Don't see why this would be a problem in this case,
>>>>>> but still - worth mentioning.
>>>>> It is because SA dump file contains privileged information like lists
>>>>> of subscribed ports.
>>>> Well, since it's being dumped in the same directory as the OSM log, 
>>>> I guess it gets the same protection as the OSM log does, doesn't it?
>>> No, the file is readable by owner only.
>> IMHO, the directory where OSM log is written is readable only by owner (which is administrator).
> 
> By default it is written to /var/log which is world readable.
> 
>> If administrator choses to write osm log to some directory that is accessible to all users,
>> there's no way to remove read permissions from a certain *file* when doing fopen().
> 
> After it was chmod()ed? Why? (and yes, there is small "hole" between
> fopen() and chmod()).
> 
>> Same with SA dump file when doing chmod(), so as long as it is dumped in a protected directory,
>> it gets the same level of protection as the osm.log.
>>  
>> Anyway, what I'm saying is that I think that it's ok to use (_S_IREAD | _S_IWRITE) on windows 
>> instead of S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR) on Linux.
> 
> All you are saying is about windows only? Well, I don't know then
> (thought your question was why chmod() is needed :)).

Yes, I was talking about Windows only.
So anyway, I guess we're cool now with the change.

-- Yevgeny

> 
> Sasha
>