This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: setfacl(2.4.0.15): for next year !!!!!
- From: Houder <houder at xs4all dot nl>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:10:43 +0100
- Subject: Re: setfacl(2.4.0.15): for next year !!!!!
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6ea00be43c852b42e0e59adcb23d0004 at xs4all dot nl> <20151221172503 dot GK4034 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <5eb15a91b67658daba604310dcaa20ee at xs4all dot nl> <b8b736649f0619b50225f7f0a0d182b5 at xs4all dot nl> <20151223105015 dot GB27818 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
On 2015-12-23 11:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Dec 22 15:42, Houder wrote:
On 2015-12-22 12:37, Houder wrote:
>On 2015-12-21 18:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Dec 21 17:30, Houder wrote:
>>>Hi Corinna,
>>>
>>>For next year !!!!! (posted as a reminder) ... See below.
>>
>>Next year? Nope... see below.
>>
>
>Hi Corinna,
>
>Thank you for all the hard work you do ...
>
>As an encore (for this year though ;-). See below (Cygwin-2.4.0-0.16).
><==== 16
[snip]
>64-%% setfacl -m m:rwx bar.txt
>64-%% getfacl bar.txt
># file: bar.txt
># owner: Henri
># group: None
>user::rw-
>group::r--
>mask:rwx <==== yes, as requested by me, but ...
>other:r--
>
>64-%% ls -l bar.txt
>-rw-rwxr-- 1 Henri None 0 Dec 22 12:21 bar.txt
>
> - does this output make sense?
> (no access to Linux at the moment; cannot verify)
Just got myself access to Linux (FC19) ... old, yes.
FC19 has the same "weird" (to me) behaviour as Cygwin now has.
It's correct. The rule is that the group perms reflect the mask
if a mask is present, the primary group perms otherwise.
Agreed. That is what acl(5) asserts ...
( CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ACL ENTRIES AND FILE PERMISSION BITS )
It also asserts that 'ls -l' should show the plus sign here ...
( CHANGES TO THE FILE UTILITIES )
The
difference is that 'ls -l' on FC19 shows an additional plus sign.
This is a problem in ls itself. The reason is that with the start of
reimplementing the ACL handling (back in August 2014), the definition
of
MIN_ACL_ENTRIES changed from 4 to 3.
I recall having a discussion with eblake (coreutils maintainer) via IRC
in 2014 where we discussed this. At that time the mask entry was only
fasked, so we came up with the fact that there's never an aclent_t with
4 entries, so ls is still using the old definition to maintain backward
compat.
With the new code in 2.4.0 it's probably time to drop this
Cygwin-specific
workaround in coreutils (but it doesn't hurt much either).
Does't hurt?
Well, without the plus sign, the output of 'ls -l' looks
suspicious/weird to
me in case of the example above ...
Perhaps Eric agrees ...
Regards,
Henri
Corinna
=====
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple