| To: | Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: For when a new stable release? |
| From: | John Trostel <jtrostel@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 May 2001 15:04:53 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | ML do XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Cc: | ML do XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mário Gamito <mg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105151346340.11093-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Connex |
| Reply-to: | jtrostel@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
The perms are first applied as normal, i.e., ugo/rwx, then the extended acls are added on as an additional qualifying condition. u::rwx,g::rwx,o::r-x,u:user1:r--,u:user2:---,u:user3:rw-,m::rwx \__________________/ \_________________________________/ 'normal' perms 'extended perms' so... 'normal' perms would apply to everyone except user1, user2, and user3. These users would get the perms shown in the 'extended perms' On 15-May-2001 Austin Gonyou wrote: > Umm..the owner is still root. But I see what you mean. So you can prevent > say a common user from deleting things, but the perms are enforced across > users? > -- John M. Trostel Linux OS Engineer Connex jtrostel@xxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: For when a new stable release?, Austin Gonyou |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: For when a new stable release?, Danny Cox |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: For when a new stable release?, Austin Gonyou |
| Next by Thread: | RE: For when a new stable release?, Austin Gonyou |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |