Re: umask ignored in mkdir(2)?

2007-01-15 Thread Hugh Dickins
[I've rearranged this to avoid a horrid mix of top and bottom posting] On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > > I think I may have found a bug --- on one of my machines the umask value > > > is

Re: umask ignored in mkdir(2)?

2007-01-15 Thread Hugh Dickins
[I've rearranged this to avoid a horrid mix of top and bottom posting] On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tigran Aivazian wrote: I think I may have found a bug --- on one of my machines the umask value is ignored

Re: umask ignored in mkdir(2)?

2007-01-14 Thread Tigran Aivazian
I figured it out! I thought you might be interested --- the reason is the mismatch between the default mount options stored in the superblock on disk and the filesystem features compiled into the kernel. Namely, dumpe2fs on the offending filesystems showed the following default mount options:

Re: umask ignored in mkdir(2)?

2007-01-14 Thread Tigran Aivazian
I figured it out! I thought you might be interested --- the reason is the mismatch between the default mount options stored in the superblock on disk and the filesystem features compiled into the kernel. Namely, dumpe2fs on the offending filesystems showed the following default mount options: