Re: x bit for dirs: misfeature?

vda
2001-11-19T15:43:24Z

On Monday 19 November 2001 15:12, Mathijs Mohlmann wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2001 vda wrote:
> > Everytime I do 'chmod -R a+rX dir' and wonder are there
> > any executables which I don't want to become world executable,
> > I think "Whatta hell with this x bit meaning 'can browse'
> > for dirs?! Who was that clever guy who invented that? Grrrr"
> >
> > Isn't r sufficient? Can we deprecate x for dirs?
> > I.e. make it a mirror of r: you set r, you see x set,
> > you clear r, you see x cleared, set/clear x = nop?
> >
> > Benefits:
> > chmod -R go-x dir (ensure there is no executables)
> > chmod -R a+r dir (make tree world readable)
> > mount -t vfat -o umask=644 /dev/xxx dir
> > (I don't want all files to be flagged as executables there)
>
> This is all userspace:
> find . -type d -exec chmod a+rx {} \;
>
> make an alias for it and stop considering changing one of the earliest
> unix standards. I'm sure if you really want this policy you can write your
> own chmod executable.

Well, I think you're right. I still think that overloading one bit to have
two meanings (exec for file, browse for dir) was a bad idea, but it looks
unsurmountable now to change that. Amount (and tone) of replies proves this.

chmod/mount/.../... workarounds is the best we can do now.

chmod -R [ugoa]+R dir - set r for files, rx for dirs
chmod -R [ugoa]-R dir - remove r for files, rx for dirs
^
mount -t vfat -o umask=644,udmask=755 /dev/hdc1 /mnt/hdc1
^^^^^^^^^^
--
vda