From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] daemon: report permission denied error to clients Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20111017195154.GA23242@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111014211921.GB16429@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1318803076-4229-1-git-send-email-drizzd@aon.at> <1318803076-4229-2-git-send-email-drizzd@aon.at> <20111017020912.GB18536@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111017194821.GA29479@ecki> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Clemens Buchacher X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 17 21:52:01 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RFtE8-0003QF-Vg for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:52:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753909Ab1JQTv5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:57 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:34023 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752461Ab1JQTv4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 10431 invoked by uid 107); 17 Oct 2011 19:52:01 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:52:01 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111017194821.GA29479@ecki> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:48:21PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > > I like the intent. This actually does leak a little more information > > than the existing --informative-errors, as before you couldn't tell the > > difference between "not found" and "not exported". > > I think you mean that before, you couldn't tell the difference > between "not found" and "permission denied". Ah, right. Sorry, I was thinking path_ok handled the export-ok flag, but I already handled it in my patch to run_service. So it is leaking a little more, but even less than I indicated. And at any rate, I think it is consistent with what --informative-errors is meant to do, so it's a good change. > > The new calling conventions for this function seem a little weird. I > > would expect either "return negative, and set errno" for usual library > > code, or possibly "return negative error value". But "return -1, or a > > positive error code" seems unusual to me. > > Yes indeed, will fix. Thanks. -Peff