[PATCH 0/2] chmod cleanup (Was: [BUG?] How to make a shared/restricted repo?)

From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Mar 26, 2009, 15:02 UTC
Message-ID: <200903261602.37857.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <49CB51E2.9010903@viscovery.net>

On Thursday 26 March 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Johan Herland schrieb:
> > In the above patch, I've passed mode == -1 to finalize_temp_file()
> > from all callsites where there was no corresponding (f)chmod(foo,
> > 0444). However, after looking at the context (these are all either
> > packs or loose objects), I'm wondering if we shouldn't pass mode ==
> > 0444 for all of these. At which point we could replace the above
> > patch with this much simpler version:
>
> Indeed!
>
> > (We could also add an optional "mode" argument to
> > adjust_shared_perm(), to get rid of the double chmod().)
>
> And I think you should do that, otherwise you have a short time
> window where the permissions of a pack or loose object is less
> restrictive than you want.

Ok, here's a cleaned-up series on top of Junio's patch. It should resolve the chmod()-after-adjust_shared_perm() issue in Junio's patch, as well as the rename-after-chmod Windows issue reported by Hannes.

The first patch is the second alternative I sent in an earlier mail. The second patch resolves the double chmod() left by the first patch.

Johan Herland (2):
  Move chmod(foo, 0444) into move_temp_to_file()
  Resolve double chmod() in move_temp_to_file()

 cache.h       |    1 +
 fast-import.c |    3 ---
 http-push.c   |    1 -
 http-walker.c |    1 -
 index-pack.c  |    7 +++----
 path.c        |   26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
 sha1_file.c   |    3 +--
 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

Have fun! :)

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net