From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:51:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] daemon: report permission denied error to clients
Message-ID: <20111017195154.GA23242@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111017194821.GA29479@ecki>

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