Paul Eggert wrote:
How about if we change usable_st_size to return false for these proc files
Attached is a better idea, I hope. I audited the coreutils code to look for
problematic uses of SEEK_END or st_size when reading files (I didn't look at
writing; one can of worms at a time).
The
f0r...@free.fr wrote:
I can confirm. Tests show that the parent folder ACL Default mask is not inherited as the ACL Access mask of the file|dir created by cp|mv.
What file system and core utils are you using?
Are you using a file system that has alternate user-data forks
or extended
Thank you Linda for extensive answer.
Just an additional info before I reply your questions: for my own tests I
didn't use /tmp as target because the sticky bit could do something special
(not sure). Instead I used /srv/test that I chown me:writers , set chmod -R
u:rwX,g:srwX then setfacl --set
Paul Eggert wrote:
The attached patch still needs a changelog entry and test cases.
I wrote those up and pushed the attached patch; this should fix the bug so I'm
closing the bug report.
From c3c87a92ba016495c20d13b80a42d750f3e0fba0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
On 10/08/2014 12:51 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
The attached patch still needs a changelog entry and test cases.
I wrote those up and pushed the attached patch; this should fix the bug so
I'm closing the bug report.
I was just going through the patch as it happens, and I
Sorry, I didn't forward this to the right list...
The user data / extended attribute forks are where linux store the
ACL's. ext4 should
be configurable to do what you want to do, but I haven't personally used
it -- but
I understand it has similar functionality as xfs. The process umask is
a
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote:
On 10/08/2014 12:51 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
The attached patch still needs a changelog entry and test cases.
I wrote those up and pushed the attached patch; this should fix the bug so
I'm closing the
