umask is 0002 on my Linux. (This is why the middle directories have 775
permission in the above experiment. 022 would lead to 755.)
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote:
> May I ask what's is the output of umask command on your system?
>
> Cos
>
> P.S. I have a hunch though it is 0022
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:01PM, Ivan V. wrote:
> > Hi, Konstantin,
> >
> > >Perhaps more logical would be to do what Unix does: if permissions
> aren't
> > explicitly set during creation, those should be inherited from the
> parent.
> >
> > as per my observations on Linux, the implicitly created directories take
> > default permissions 0777 & ~umask but not inherit them from parent.
> > E.g.
> > /bin/mkdir -m 700 a
> > /bin/mkdir -p -m 770 a/b/c/d
> >
> > gives the following result:
> > a 700
> > a/b 775
> > a/b/c 775
> > a/b/c/d 770
> >
> > ('touch' Unix command does not have ability to create parent
> directories.)
> > Or you mean a behavior of a built-in system function, but not the
> standard
> > commands?
> >
> > Currently suggested patch (see
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1637) fixes the behavior
> > exactly as it is implemented in HDFS (because main function of IGFS is to
> > be a replacement or a caching layer over HDFS):
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > If a file is created, the created directories get
> > org.apache.hadoop.fs.permission.FsPermission#getDirDefault (0777)
> > permission. Umask *is* applied to the created file, but is *not *applied
> to
> > the created directories.
> >
> > If a directory is created, all the parent directories are created with
> the
> > same permission that is requested for the directory itself. The only
> > exception is that "wx" (write and execute) permissions are explicitly
> added
> > for the owner on the parent directories to be able to write child
> > directories. Umask *is* applied to all the created directories.
> > If umask conflicts with the added permissions , the added permissions
> take
> > priority.
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > Though, there is no problem to re-implement this in another way. Just
> would
> > like to make sure we have a proposal that is argued and agreed over the
> > community.
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 08:01PM, Ivan Veselovskiy wrote:
> > > > > Currently we have #create, #append , #mkdirs operations that
> implicitly
> > > > > create parent directories if they are absent.
> > > > > Now #mkdirs uses the properties passed in for the implicitly
> created
> > > > > directories if they are not null, and uses default properties (with
> > > 0777
> > > > > permission flag) if the properties are not given.
> > > > > #create & #append use for the implicitly created directories
> properties
> > > > > passed in for newly created file, if the passed in properties are
> not
> > > > null,
> > > > > and use default properties (with 0777 permission flag) if they are
> not
> > > > > given.
> > > > > The question is: wouldn't it be more logical to always use
> defaults for
> > > > the
> > > > > implicitly created directories?
> > > >
> > > > Looks like this is way to late, but still... Perhaps more logical
> would
> > > be
> > > > to
> > > > do what Unix does: if permissions aren't explicitly set during
> creation,
> > > > those should be inherited from the parent.
> > > >
> > > > Does it makes sense?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Makes sense to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > >
>
