ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=

[acmeinc]

One last thing....

have you tried;

setfacl -s

i notice you have -m in your original post.

Other than this, I won't have any other insight.


Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote:
> 
> acmeinc wrote:
>> You may consider trying chmod 660 filename.
> 
> It gives the same result. When changing group permission (either
> way) on a file with acls, you're effectively changing the acl mask
> instead. Also, if I change acl mask with setfacl, then ls -l will
> list the permission mask in the group columns in the output.
> 
> If this is by design, then it isn't documented in chmod(1) (or
> anywhere else that I can see).
> 
> It kinda makes sense this way, though. If you chmod the group
> permission, you change all groups' permissions. But I'd like to see
> it documented, as it caused me some confusion, and I still think
> that this isn't obvious.
> 
> 
>> Svein Halvor Halvorsen-4 wrote:
>>> If I have acls enabled on a file, running chmod g=rw on that file,
>>> will not change its group permissions, but the acl mask.
>>>
>>> That is, running the following command:
>>> 	$ chmod g=rw foo
>>>
>>> ... is equivalent with
>>> 	$ setfacl -m m::rw-
>>>
>>> ... and not, as I would suspect:
>>> 	$ setfacl -m g::rw-
>>>
>>> In other words, foo will not be read/writable by its default group
>>> after the command have been run (unless it was already).
>>>
>>> I find this behaviour to be very confusing. It might be the correct
>>> bahaviour, but if so maybe the chmod(1) manpage, and possibly
>>> chmod(2), should be updated to document this?
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Svein Halvor
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ACLs%2C-permission-mask-and-chmod-g%3D-tp18893185p18900042.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.