Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
acmeinc wrote: > One last thing > > have you tried; > > setfacl -s "setfacl -s" is not documented, and also gives "illegal option -- s" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
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. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
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 >> >> >> >> > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
You may consider trying chmod 660 filename. 660 -> UGW, user group world. For each read, write, and execute is given a number, 4,2,1 repectively. So, 660 would result in rw-rw, a popluar format is 755, rwxr-xr-x. You would simply replace add the numbers together for each division and place them after chmod and before the file to give the permissions you would like. 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-tp18893185p18899706.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
ACLs, permission mask and chmod g=
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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
