| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Meaning of effective permissions |
| From: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Apr 2003 23:05:07 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <057889C7F1E5D61193620002A537E869468121@NCBDC> |
| Mail-copies-to: | nobody |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <057889C7F1E5D61193620002A537E869468121@NCBDC> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:57:51AM -0700, Marc Kaplan wrote: > Ethan Benson wrote: > > right, because those are controlled by standard unix permissions. > > > > -- > > Ethan Benson > > http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ > > > Well, owning group is affected by the mask, yet it is controlled by standard > unix permissions. I guess that's the exception. well thats where it gets confusing. once a mask exists primary group is no longer controlled through normal unix permissions (in that changing the group permissions with chmod(2) no longer affects the primary group perms, it only affects the mask. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Meaning of effective permissions, Marc Kaplan |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - QA tests, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Meaning of effective permissions, Marc Kaplan |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE - A few white space cleanups that got missed, Rusell Cattelan |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |