Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> writes: > if there is somewhere we advertise that the permissions on a file are > the intersection of the permissions granted by the ACLs on all > directories above it in the volume, we should fix that. I am aware of > no such claim being made. A reference to such would be appreciated.
Oh, not in general, but just for the "l" bit -- I got that impression in the CMU beat-andrew-into-the-dumb-undergrads'-head-course (I forget the real name). Looking back, I guess none of the documentation actually flat-out says that the "l" bit behaves transitively; I seem to have misread it as having that effect (see below). So, as a coda to the whole transitive-ACL thing, I was under the impression that one of the bits already had transitive behavior; in that situation, the option to let the others act transitively made a reasonable amount of sense. But it appears I was mistaken, so adding transitive behavior would actually be a massive (and therefore unwise) change in behavior. Sorry for the noise! - a In the OpenAFS User Guide: "The l (lookup) permission ... In particular, a user must have this permission to access anything in the directory's subdirectories" http://docs.openafs.org/UserGuide/ch04s02.html On the AFSLore Wiki: "l Permission to examine the ACL and traverse the directory" http://www.dementia.org/twiki/bin/view/AFSLore/UsageFAQ#2_04_What_is_an_AFS_access_contr Elsewhere on the interwebs: "l for the right to list the names of files in the directory. You must have at least the 'l' right on the parent directory to access a subdirectory (even if you have full permissions on the subdirectory)." http://www.physics.umd.edu/pnce/user-docs/HowTos/afs-acls.html (apparently you just need the FID of the subdirectory) _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
