🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul26.165838.1278@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@pixel.convex.COM
(Tom Christiansen) writes:
>What programs would break drastically if we changed the library fopen()
>call to either accept "rx"/"wx" to indicate a popen(), or else for the
>sake of transparency, to have it stat() the file and check for the execute
>bit?  (Should we to do it for open() as well?  Probably.)  Certainly editors
>would prefer the former solution, but most general purpose programs the
>latter one.

What would happen if a program did an open/fopen on a directory? Many
directories have rx/wx on them... I like your idea, however, I'd
suggest having a special group for these files. When fopen/open
detected this special group, they would do the popen. Since no user
would belong to this group, only the owner would be able to edit it
(provided appropriate permissions were setup).

The largest problems I see with the above would be the uid/gid that the
file would be executed under - I'd suggest the uid/gid a la
set[ug]id(); handling of command-line arguments (none); and set[ud]id
bits (ignore them?).
-- 
+++BdA  Brian de Alwis. Brain on loan to Cognos Inc, Ottawa, Ontario.
	dealwisb@cognos.com, or bsdealwi@napier.{waterloo.edu,uwaterloo.ca}
	"Nine out of ten men who tried camels said they preferred women"