Is this possible ? inherit group permissions
Chris Warren
chris at dawgiestyle.com
Mon May 23 13:21:20 PDT 2005
Just a guess, but would the sticky bit help here?
Chris
On Mon, 2005-23-05 at 16:14 -0400, cs wrote:
> Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Tony Shadwick <tshadwick at goinet.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 23 May 2005, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>cs <cs-fbsd at ctzen.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>For a directory, e.g. foo/, if I chmod 775 foo/, is it possible for
> >>>>newly created files and directories under foo/ to automagically
> >>>>inherit the group permissions of foo ?
> >>>>
> >>>>e.g.
> >>>>touch foo/test would be rw-rw-r--
> >>>>mkdir foo/sub would be rwxrwxr-x
> >>>>
> >>>>I am looking for a non umask solution.
> >>>>
> >>>>I seem to remember in debian, I was able to make the group permissions
> >>>>of the parent directory special for this magic to occur.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder if there is something similar in FBSD.
> >>>
> >>>If you set the suid bit, both owner *and* group will be set.
> >
> >
> >>I'll have to remember that one. So if /home is a filesystem unto
> >>itself, if you set the suid bit on /home, all further creation beneath
> >>it will inherit the permissions you set above?
> >
> >
> > Only *directly* underneath it. Obviously you wouldn't want to do that
> > for /home, but I find it quite useful on shared project directories
> > and the like.
>
> If you are talking about inheriting group identity, that is not what I
> am asking for. I believe this is automagic under fbsd, e.g.
>
> mkdir foo
> chgrp somegroup foo
> touch foo/foofile
> mkdir foo/foodir
>
> foo/foofile and foo/foodir will have gid somegroup (without any suid or
> sgid).
>
> What I am more interested in is inherting group permissions.
>
> For example, I have a directory /var/www/foosite, which allows several
> different users to maintain it.
>
> One way to do it is to use a common account for all the users to
> maintain foosite.
>
> But it is "too loose" in accountability.
>
> Going full version control (cvs/subversion) is not really desired for me
> because it's not a "mission critical" thing.
>
> What I would like to do is create a group (say foogroup), assign all
> maintainers to the group, chgrp foogroup /var/www/foosite, and chmod g+w
> /var/www/foosite.
>
> Here is the "fun" part.
>
> User umask is 022 (which I would like to maintain).
>
> touch foosite/foofile
> mkdir foosite/foodir
>
> would render those new file/dir NOT group writable.
>
> umask 002 would make them group writable BUT it is a "global" setting
> and would affect other parts of the file system as well (e.g. user's home).
>
> Plus not all users are savvy enough to do umask 002 / umask 022 whenever
> necessary.
>
> I am looking for an "elegant" solution which I doubt I will find.
>
> After some thoughs, this is my "compromized" solution.
>
> The users will maintain foosite via ftp (within a VPN), and I use vsftpd
> and set the ftp umask to 002.
>
> -cs
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20050523/e6b9bf41/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list