James,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:27:35AM +0000, James Pearson wrote:
> Thanks for the info - given that the XFS 1.0.2 v2.4.14-xfs kernel was
> available before January 10 2002, then, I assume, disabling ACLs will
> make no difference with this kernel?
I believe so.
>
> As our users have a default umask of 2, setting the default ACL
> equivalent to a directory with '0775' seems to be a suitable work round
> for the time being ... does this sound like a sensible thing to do?
Sounds reasonable to me.
(If you have a default ACL then the permissions get intersected with
the permissions parameters of the syscall for creation)
> I notice there is nothing in the XFS FAQ about this problem - in fact
> the FAQ states:
> 'So far there are no more known problems with XFS and NFS since then
> (mid-march 2001)'
Good point.
--Tim
> Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 03:19:35PM +0000, James Pearson wrote:
> > > I've just had the problem with mkdir ignoring umask when creating
> > > directories on Linux XFS file systems mounted over NFS.
> > > I'm using XFS 1.0.2 with kernel 2.4.14-xfs
> > > Searching the archives, shows that this is a known issue - but are there
> > > any workarounds/fixes?
> > This is probably related to a bug with the handling of
> > the umask in the XFS/ACL code.
> > (if a default ACL doesn't exist then xfs incorrectly applies
> > the umask in the nfsd case)
> > With ACLs disabled, this bug was fixed in the xfs-kernel
> > on January 10 2002.
> > With ACLs enabled, this bug still exists and
> > possible solutions are currently being discussed.
|