On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 09:30:00PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > That doesn't work for the same reason as discussed in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2018-03/msg00074.html. > It's unlikely that someone will set his umask to 400 and expect no ill > effects, but I suppose it's better not to fail in the face of that kind > of behavior.
I still maintain that the "umask 400" is most likely a user error. The user probably wanted a umask that would cause all of the files to have 0400 permissions. Such a umask would be 0377, not 0400. A umask that denies read permission to the owner of the file but leaves the file world writable is simply not rational. Bash's behavior seems acceptable to me: wooledg:~$ bash -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello' bash: cannot create temp file for here-document: Permission denied wooledg:~$ bash-5.0-beta -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello' bash-5.0-beta: cannot create temp file for here-document: Permission denied But if you want to follow ksh's lead, I would also find that acceptable: wooledg:~$ ksh -c 'umask 0777; cat <<< hello' hello
