Re: setfacl --restore and capital X

On Tuesday 11 October 2005 14:06, Fabio Muzzi wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
>
> Monday, October 10, 2005, 6:34:13 PM, you wrote:
> >> Is this a bug, or I am doing something wrong?
>
> AG> The X "permission" doesn't really exist on the file system, it's only a
> AG> shortcut for setfacl similar to chmod's X. Once setfacl has run, the
> result AG> on the filesystem is either x or no x for each affected entry.
>
> Ok,  so  there  is  no  way  to  "remember"  that  there was a default "X"
> permission instead of a default "x" one.
>
> I  am  sorry  for  the  stupid question, but shouldn't be useful to have a
> defualt  permission  that  behaves  like  when  I  use  setfacl with a "X"
> permission?  I  understand  that  there  is  no "X" permission on the file
> system,  but there should be a default "X" permission that only applies to
> new directories and not to new files, or something like that.

Well, POSIX ACLs haven't been designed like that. Instead, the mask entry is 
used to mask off permissions that shall not be effective. Consider this 
example:

$ touch d
$ setfacl -dm u:joe:rwx d
$ mkdir d/d
$ getfacl --omit-header d/d
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:user:joe:rwx
default:group::r-x
default:mask::rwx
default:other::r-x

$ touch d/f
$ getfacl --omit-header d/f
user::rw-
user:joe:rwx                    #effective:rw-
group::r-x                      #effective:r--
mask::rw-
other::r--

As you can see, the effective permissions are set appropriately for 
directories and for files.

-- Andreas.
_______________________________________________
acl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://acl.bestbits.at/mailman/listinfo/acl-devel