AW: why symbolic link arnt visible?

["Maurizio Caloro" <maurizio@caloro.ch>]

Hello All

We've been talking about the broth for sooo long now, I almost don't remember what the initial request was.

But joking aside, I would like to thank you very much for the advertising that I have received again.

I found the solution myself yesterday, like almost all the other questions I had asked for individually in this 
forum. Unfortunately, such "small" inquiries are simply discussed deeply and for a long time and philosophized
heavily, unfortunately I didn't have that much time for this small inquiry.

Meny meny Thanks again for everyone who has written to me here.

please where do I go so I can unsubscribe here

gently
Maurizio

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> 
Gesendet: Samstag, 29. April 2023 06:52
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: why symbolic link arnt visible?

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 08:20:37PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:28:11PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 07:06:17PM +0200, Maurizio Caloro wrote:
> > > > f: /var/lib/rancid/routers/configs
> > > > drwxr-xr-x root   root   /
> > > > drwxr-xr-x root   root   var
> > > > drwxr-xr-x root   root   lib
> > > > drwxr-xr-x rancid rancid rancid
> > > > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid routers
> > > > drwxr-x--- rancid rancid configs
> > > 
> > > The last two directories are missing world +x permission.  This 
> > > means the web server process can't touch them -- can't enter them, 
> > > can't open files within them, etc.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > I guess they need read permission too?
> 
> Only if the web server process needs to generate a directory listing.
> If it knows the file name in advance, read permission isn't needed -- 
> just execute.

That's right. "Experimentally" confirmed :) 

I always had this (obviously mislead) notion that the web server checks read permission along the whole path to read-access a file. At least lighttpd doesn't (but I gues this kind of convention will be common to all servers).

> > And the file itself, c3560, also needs read permissions.
> > We don't know that, yet :)
> 
> Yes, assuming the intent is to deliver the file's content, it'll need 
> read permission on the file itself.

So, Maurizio -- to finish this riddle: what does "ls -l c3560" say?

C'mon, the suspense is hard to bear ;-)

Cheers
--
t