Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*For\s+when\s+a\s+new\s+stable\s+release\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*For\s+when\s+a\s+new\s+stable\s+release\?\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:10:57 +0100; First of all, my congratulations to the people who worked for bringing XFS to Linux. You've done a man's job. I'm using it now in my /home in an intensive use Samba server and i'm quite happy with i; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00721.html (8,080 bytes)
2. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:14:15 -0400 (EDT); Which bug is this? 1. The inode eating bug This is caused by a (fixed) bug in the .../linux/fs/posix_acl.c file. I could send you a patch for just this bug if you are interested. (You would need to r; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00726.html (10,501 bytes)
3. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: een@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:17:04 -0500 (CDT); 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 server[/home/userx]#>exit server[/home/userx]$>chmod 777; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00731.html (11,600 bytes)
4. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT); the XFS format will stay the same forever (at least the foreseeable future)...there are certain portions which could change version, but the old versions would still be supported. like the directory; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00732.html (8,931 bytes)
5. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:41:19 -0400 (EDT); But you just changed the acl! 1. setup the acl on file 'jt_junk' [jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ 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'; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00734.html (10,591 bytes)
6. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:08:43 -0500 (CDT); I agree with this. but my problem is ACLs should protect. At this point the file can still be modified/deleted by ANYONE if I chmod 777 that file. What's the point of ACLs if they don't stop malicios; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00737.html (11,150 bytes)
7. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:16:44 -0500 (CDT); Here's another example. --begin user test-- [austin@UberGeek test]$ chacl u::rwx,g::rwx,o::r-x,u:root:r--,m::rwx somefile [austin@UberGeek test]$ ls -l total 4 -rwxrwxr-x 1 austin austin 0 May 15 12:; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00739.html (9,943 bytes)
8. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:34:31 -0400 (EDT); Then don't chmod 777 the file. If the file has been given the ACL u::rwx,g::rwx,o::rwx,u:user1:r-x,m::rwx then everyone _except_ 'user1' can delete the file. If the file had been given u::rwx,g::rwx,; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00740.html (10,555 bytes)
9. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: een@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:47:04 -0500 (CDT); 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? -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Cor; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00745.html (11,083 bytes)
10. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:04:53 -0400 (EDT); 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 \______; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00746.html (9,345 bytes)
11. Re: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:35:42 -0400; It did just as you instructed it. Under Linux and UNIX, creating/deleting a file is governed by the permissions on the directory, not the file itself. This is with or without ACLs. -- "Men occasiona; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00747.html (9,734 bytes)
12. For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: r.maes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:10:57 +0100; First of all, my congratulations to the people who worked for bringing XFS to Linux. You've done a man's job. I'm using it now in my /home in an intensive use Samba server and i'm quite happy with i; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02085.html (8,080 bytes)
13. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: ki <kszysiu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:14:15 -0400 (EDT); Which bug is this? 1. The inode eating bug This is caused by a (fixed) bug in the .../linux/fs/posix_acl.c file. I could send you a patch for just this bug if you are interested. (You would need to r; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02090.html (10,501 bytes)
14. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:17:04 -0500 (CDT); 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 server[/home/userx]#>exit server[/home/userx]$>chmod 777; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02095.html (11,600 bytes)
15. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT); the XFS format will stay the same forever (at least the foreseeable future)...there are certain portions which could change version, but the old versions would still be supported. like the directory; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02096.html (8,931 bytes)
16. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:41:19 -0400 (EDT); But you just changed the acl! 1. setup the acl on file 'jt_junk' [jt@jtsdell xfs_part]$ 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'; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02098.html (10,591 bytes)
17. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:08:43 -0500 (CDT); I agree with this. but my problem is ACLs should protect. At this point the file can still be modified/deleted by ANYONE if I chmod 777 that file. What's the point of ACLs if they don't stop malicios; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02101.html (11,150 bytes)
18. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: rsen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:16:44 -0500 (CDT); Here's another example. --begin user test-- [austin@UberGeek test]$ chacl u::rwx,g::rwx,o::r-x,u:root:r--,m::rwx somefile [austin@UberGeek test]$ ls -l total 4 -rwxrwxr-x 1 austin austin 0 May 15 12:; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02103.html (9,943 bytes)
19. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:34:31 -0400 (EDT); Then don't chmod 777 the file. If the file has been given the ACL u::rwx,g::rwx,o::rwx,u:user1:r-x,m::rwx then everyone _except_ 'user1' can delete the file. If the file had been given u::rwx,g::rwx,; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02104.html (10,555 bytes)
20. RE: For when a new stable release? (score: 1): Author: Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:47:04 -0500 (CDT); 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? -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Cor; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg02109.html (11,083 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]