Ping: [PATCH] make pidfile permissions 644, not 666

[Ian Wienand]

On 08/24/2011 03:45 PM, Cathey, Jim wrote:
> Aren't most uses of 0666 implicitly assuming
> some umask activity?

> The point is that the 0666 is not to be assumed
> to be the final value.  Also the point is that
> to use this proposed new code in our system we
> would have had to find it, and change it to something
> else in the source, rather than relying on umask.
> (Which is what umask is for.)

I'm more used to daemons that set a umask of 0 and then explicitly
choose their permissions.  I think that's a fairly standard
daemon-ish thing to do.  But anyway, I guess the status quo wins...

-i