Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks

Committed with the discussed adjustment and documentation update.

On 3/18/16 2:26 PM, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-03-16 <56E8C221(dot)1050206(at)gmx(dot)net>
>>>> * 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.
>>
>> I'm happy with this patch except this minor point. Any final comments?
>
> I'm fine with that change.
>
> Do you want me to update the patch or do you already have a new
> version, given it's marked as Ready for Committer?
>
> Christoph
>