Use 0o666 permissions for flock files instead of 0o777 #16845
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zanieb
temporarily deployed
to
uv-test-registries
GitHub Actions
Inactive
konstin
added a commit
to konstin/rustup
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2025
Member
|
@geofft Do you know what permissions we need so that different processes, e.g. running in different docker containers, can use the same lockfile? |
konstin
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2025
Member
konstin
left a comment
konstin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
666 is clearly better than 777, I don't know POSIX well enough to know if we can go tighter than that
konstin
added
the
enhancement
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This removes executable permissions while retaining global read / global write.
It's been suggested we should use 0o644 instead, dropping the global write permissions (i.e., just the owner can write), but since we're taking an exclusive lock I don't think that would work and we'd regress the issue that was solved by updating the permissions. I think we'll need to revisit the locking scheme if that's the goal, but regardless, this seems like a net improvement.