[ale] Grepping on the access_log

[Strider Centaur]

    Joe,

    Im aware of all of that, concerning the execute bit.  I didn't think I needed to
go into detail on the subject, as the one posting the question knew about octal
permissions in the first place.  However, the term inheritance is often used to
describe directory permissions in UNIX, even though it is not true inheritance in the
strict sense of the word( or loose sense for that matter).   I just toss it in with
the bps/Baud thing, they mean two totally separate things but are so ingrained that it
no longer matters, at least to the masses.  :-)

    But thanks for wonderful explanation, Im sure it was informative to others on the
list.

Joe Knapka wrote:

> Strider Centaur wrote:
> >
> >     Does the user have Directory Permissions?  Setting a files permissions does
> > not help you if the user does not have permission to access the directory and all
> > the directories above it.  Linux/Unix permission are inherited ( I believe that's
> > what they call it ) from the parent directories.
>
> You're most likely right about the problem, but I have a
> quibble with your characterization of permissions.
>
> It's not inheritance, in any strict sense of the term.
> You don't automatically get, for example, "write" permission
> to the files in a directory just by having write
> permission on the directory; nor are you automatically
> denied write permission to directory contents by virtue of
> not having write permission to the directory itself.
> For directories, "r" allows you to get a list of the
> directory contents, "w" allows you to update the
> directory itself (which you'd need to do to create
> a file, but not to write an existing file), and "x"
> allows you to follow a path through the directory.
> "x" is the important one.
>
> All a user needs is execute permission on a directory
> in order to read any file (or subdirectory), provided
> they have read access to the file. For directories, the
> execute bit is interpreted to mean "searchable", as in,
> "The user has permission to search this directory to
> find the specific item they are looking for." So if you
> have permissions 001 (that is, --------x) on a directory,
> anyone can read any file in that directory, provided they
> know the file's name beforehand, and have read access to
> the file. They can also access the contents of subdirectories,
> if the subdirs' permissions allow. They *can't* get a
> directory listing, though; that requires "read" permission
> on the directory itself.
>
> Conversely, if you *don't* have "x" permission on
> a directory, you won't be able to access any file
> that lies on a path through that directory, even if
> you have read permissions on everything else in sight.
>
> Didactically yours,
>
> -- Joe
>
> --
> *** Joseph Knapka ***
> In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks)
> are to be treated as variables.
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.

--
Strider Centaur
HTTP://www.Scifi-Fantasy.com

   " It is my observation that unless you really understand the issues, you are
hardly in a position to criticize.   Nearly all Linux users have used Windows,
but very few Windows users have used Linux. " -- Me



--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.