Re: [Condor-devel] changes to condor_submit

[Peter Keller <psilord@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 04:58:06PM -0700, Rob wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:56:09 Dan Bradley wrote:
> >The problem appears to be from this line in file_transfer.cpp:
> >
> >+                       if ( ! access(ExecFile,F_OK | X_OK) >= 0 ) {
> >+                               free(ExecFile); ExecFile = NULL;
> 
> Is "access(ExecFile,F_OK | X_OK)" correct?
> I think there's at least some redundancy there...
> 
> 
> On my Fedora system, 'man access' says:
> 
> 
> int access(const char *pathname, int mode);
>   [...]
>   The mode specifies the accessibility check(s) to be
>   performed, and is either the value F_OK, or a mask
>   consisting of the bitwise OR of one or more of R_OK,
>   W_OK, and X_OK.
>   [...]
>   On  success  (all requested permissions granted),
> zero is returned.
> 
> 
> So, "F_OK | X_OK" seems to be redundant!
> 
> The ZERO return on SUCCESS I did not realized in the past
> and occasionally wrote buggy code....
> 
> 
> Please double check that this access() if-conditional-clause
> really does what it's suppose to do!

Um, is that actually access()? Or access_euid()? If the latter, then
you know why I have "obscure knowledge maintainer" on my business card. :)

Later,
-pete