On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 09:33:17AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > From: <to...@tuxteam.de> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 06:22:53 +0200 > > No. A FAT file system has no permissions (and no user/group ownership). > > All is faked one layer above. > > Understood. > > Aren't we saying the same thing in two ways. In natural language, 777 > just means anyone can read & write & execute. 555 just means anyone > can read & execute; none can write. Those are the possibilities with > FAT.
No, not really: first, execute permissions are interpreted differently for directories (they're not executable, which wouldn't make much sense, but searchable). Second, you decide which owner and group and which umask is valid for the /whole/ file system at mount time. Due to the different interpretation for directories, you have a 'umask' option for regular files and a 'dmask' for directories. So you can well do 640 for regular files and 750 for dirs if you so wish. This always in relation to the user and group stated in uid, gid. By default, the mounting proces's umask is taken. Cheers -- tomás
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
