Re: Unexpected "setfacl: illegal acl entries"

Greetings, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin!

> On Apr 20 01:35, Andrey Repin via Cygwin wrote:
>> Greetings, All!
>> 
>> I'm receiving this unexpected message when trying to edit the directory ACL:
>> 
>> >> [C:\Programs\Cygwin\bin]$ setfacl -m user::rx .
>> >> setfacl: illegal acl entries
>> 
>> But then I'm trying this
>> 
>> >> [C:\Programs\Cygwin\bin]$ setfacl -m user::r-x .
>> 
>> and it succeed.
>> 
>> To the all of my knowledge, ACL bits can be specified in any set or order.
>> 
>> Even the `setfacl -m user::wXr` command is correct.

> Our setfacl doesn't support that yet. It was originally designed after
> the description of the Solaris setfacl and the man page of that didn't
> mention that the perms can be in any order.  Just reading the Linux man
> page and it, too, doesn't mention that an arbitrary order is ok.  To my
> knowledge there's also no actual standard defining the exact way how
> setfacl operates.

> Our setfacl doesn't support 'X' yet.  Actually I just read about it for
> the first time :}

Neither *NIX does.
It just reads the bits caseless until the end of the block.
Very simple, fool- and future-proof.

> I add that to my TODO list, but don't expect anything for 3.6 at all,
> and for 3.7 any time soon.

> As always, patches to the cygwin-patches maling list are, of course,
> welcome.

If only I could. I always contribute where I can.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Monday, April 20, 2026 23:15:43

Sorry for my terrible english...


-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple