Re: Behaviour of 'file group' acl entries

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 20:48 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 09:54 +0930, Kevin Shanahan wrote:
> > I'm seeing what looks like a mismatch between the 'file group' ACL entry
> > permissions and the standard unix permissions; for example on this
> > directory:
> 
> The S_IRWXG permission bits correspond to the mask ACL entry if there is
> one.  Only when there is no mask do the bits correspond to the
> group-owner entry.  See `man 5 acl` for details.

Ah, thanks. I must have read that a number of times but it just didn't
click that was what I was seeing.

> This behavior is good because chmodding a file go-rwx still ensures that
> only the user-owner can access it and programs that see a file of mode
> 600 can be confident that only the user-owner can access it.

Yes, it makes sense when you put it like that. I was trying to test
Samba's behaviour with the 'acl group control' option when the file
group had no write access. It looks like it's not possible to have the
file group with less access than any ACL_USER or ACL_GROUP entries.
Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Kevin.


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