But you just changed the acl!
1. setup the acl on file 'jt_junk'
[jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ chacl u::rwx,g::rwx,o::r-x,u:user1:r--,m::rwx jt_junk
2. look at the 'normal' part of the acl with just 'ls -l'
[jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ ls -l jt_junk
-rwxrwxr-x 1 jt jt 0 May 11 13:36 jt_junk
3. change the 'normal' part of the acl with 'chmod'
[jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ chmod 777 jt_junk
4. look at the 'normal' part of the acl with just 'ls -l'
[jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ ls -l jt_junk
-rwxrwxrwx 1 jt jt 0 May 11 13:36 jt_junk
5. look at the entire acl with 'chacl -l'
[jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ chacl -l jt_junk
jt_junk [u::rwx,g::rwx,o::rwx,u:user1:r--,m::rwx]
The part of the acl not affected by the 'normal' command 'chmod' is still
there! Just because I have acls enabled on a file system should not mean that I
should be precluded from using the 'normal' tools to work on the files. That
would break many things!
On 15-May-2001 Austin Gonyou wrote:
> One thing I think he's thinking about, when it comes to acl setting is
> something like this:
>
> server[/home/userx]#>chacl u:5:,g:4:,o:0: somefile
You should have done an 'ls -l' to see what the permissions were here! I
suspect they would have been 540.
> server[/home/userx]#>exit
> server[/home/userx]$>chmod 777 somefile
Now you've changed the permissions back to 777.
> server[/home/userx]$>ls -l somefile
> -rwxrwxrwx 1 userx userx 72178 May 15 10:25 somefile
And you see these 777 permissions with ls -l
> I don't quite understand here. What good is setting ACLs on files if they
> don't stick? Aside from that, that's my only gripe. I need to go do some
> testing with directories next. :)
Why should they stick if you have appropriate permission to change them?
--
John M. Trostel
Linux OS Engineer
Connex
jtrostel@xxxxxxxxxx
|