On 3/4/16 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> * it failed to check for S_IXUSR, so permissions 0700 were okay, in
> contradiction with what the error message indicates. This is a
> preexisting bug actually. Do we want to fix it by preventing a
> user-executable file (possibly breaking compability with existing
> executable key files), or do we want to document what the restriction
> really is?
I think we should not check for S_IXUSR. There is no reason for doing that.
I can imagine that key files are sometimes copied around using USB
drives with FAT file systems or other means of that sort where
permissions can scrambled. While I hate gratuitous executable bits as
much as the next person, insisting here would just create annoyances in
practice.