On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:31:39AM +0100, Mário Gamito wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm considering using XFS mainly because of ACL support.
> But since i read the following quoatation in URL...
>
> http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/0105/msg00368.html
>
> "The 1.0 release, however, applies default ACLs which are
> affected by the umask. This has been fixed in the CVS tree
> so that default ACLs are used in preference to the umask.
> (the fix didn't make it in time to 1.0)."
>
> ...i have a question:
> Does this mean that ACL is *really* not working because is overrided by
> umask, or is it just the default behaviour which in turn can be
> overrided by means of some configuration?
>
No I'm afraid this was a bug that escaped. In the released code namei.c had not
been patched to ensure that the umask was not applied when a default ACL was
present on the parent directory. As the caveat states this has been fixed in the
CVS tree.
Andrew
--
Andrew Gildfind - R&D Software Engineer - SGI Melbourne Australia
email: ajag@xxxxxxx - work: +61.3.9834.8200 mobile: 0412.834.183
|