Re: [PATCH v3/GSoC 2/5] path.c: implement xdg_runtime_dir()

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

That's clearer, but if I were the caller, I would worry about the
security of the path.
How about adding:

The security of the path is ensured by file permission.

Is "by file permission" descriptive enough?

To protect /a/b/c/socket, what filesystem entities have the right
permission bits set?  If the parent directory is writable by an
attacker, the permission bits on 'socket' itself may not matter as
the attacker can rename it away and create new one herself, for
example.

I think that is discussed elsewhere, and referring to the xdg document
is enough. My main point is that the docstring about a function should
tell a potential caller what they need to know to use it, but if it gets
overly long, that information is lost in the noise.

I agree with your main point, and I was wondering if "by file
permission" is merely adding yet another noise if there is
discussion elsewhere already, and/or if it does not refer to an
external document that has a fuller discussion, because it lacks any
useful information by itself.