setfacl(2.4.0.15): for next year !!!!!

Wed Dec 23 11:10:00 GMT 2015

On 2015年12月23日 11:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Dec 22 15:42, Houder wrote:
>> On 2015年12月22日 12:37, Houder wrote:
>> >On 2015年12月21日 18:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>On Dec 21 17:30, Houder wrote:
>> >>>Hi Corinna,
>> >>>
>> >>>For next year !!!!! (posted as a reminder) ... See below.
>> >>
>> >>Next year? Nope... see below.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hi Corinna,
>> >
>> >Thank you for all the hard work you do ...
>> >
>> >As an encore (for this year though ;-). See below (Cygwin-2.4.0-0.16).
>> ><==== 16
>> [snip]
>>>> >64-%% setfacl -m m:rwx bar.txt
>> >64-%% getfacl bar.txt
>> ># file: bar.txt
>> ># owner: Henri
>> ># group: None
>> >user::rw-
>> >group::r--
>> >mask:rwx <==== yes, as requested by me, but ...
>> >other:r--
>> >
>> >64-%% ls -l bar.txt
>> >-rw-rwxr-- 1 Henri None 0 Dec 22 12:21 bar.txt
>> >
>> > - does this output make sense?
>> > (no access to Linux at the moment; cannot verify)
>>>> Just got myself access to Linux (FC19) ... old, yes.
>>>> FC19 has the same "weird" (to me) behaviour as Cygwin now has.
>> It's correct. The rule is that the group perms reflect the mask
> if a mask is present, the primary group perms otherwise.

Agreed. That is what acl(5) asserts ...
( CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ACL ENTRIES AND FILE PERMISSION BITS )
It also asserts that 'ls -l' should show the plus sign here ...
( CHANGES TO THE FILE UTILITIES )
>> The
>> difference is that 'ls -l' on FC19 shows an additional plus sign.
>> This is a problem in ls itself. The reason is that with the start of
> reimplementing the ACL handling (back in August 2014), the definition 
> of
> MIN_ACL_ENTRIES changed from 4 to 3.
>> I recall having a discussion with eblake (coreutils maintainer) via IRC
> in 2014 where we discussed this. At that time the mask entry was only
> fasked, so we came up with the fact that there's never an aclent_t with
> 4 entries, so ls is still using the old definition to maintain backward
> compat.
>> With the new code in 2.4.0 it's probably time to drop this 
> Cygwin-specific
> workaround in coreutils (but it doesn't hurt much either).

Does't hurt?
Well, without the plus sign, the output of 'ls -l' looks 
suspicious/weird to
me in case of the example above ...
Perhaps Eric agrees ...
Regards,
Henri
>> Corinna

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