Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Query\s+about\s+setfacl\s+behavior\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Query\s+about\s+setfacl\s+behavior\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:25:50 +1000; Yeah it looks wrong, John. It looks like the mask ACE is getting the group permissions. e.g. == [root@sagan xfs1]# getfacl wow user::r-- group::rwother::rwx [root@sagan xfs1]# setfacl -m m::-- wow [r; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00000.html (11,312 bytes)
2. Re: Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:11:58 +1000; Hi John, I now have more of an idea of what is happening - I'll need to get some feedback from Andreas G. on setfacl(1) for this. If I have: [root@sagan xfs1]# getfacl wow user::r-x group::rw- #effec; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00004.html (13,736 bytes)
3. Re: Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:44:39 +0200 (CEST); Because this is what setfacl is supposed to do accorindg to the specification. Unless the -n option is not used, setfacl recalculates the permissions in the ACL mask entry whenever the ACL changes, a; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00005.html (9,932 bytes)
4. Re: Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:59:17 +1000; Hi Andreas, I think you mean "unless the -n option is used" This ACL stuff is weird. Looking at the std (1003.2c sect.8.2.7) it says: "For both the -m and -M options, ... If no mask entry is specifie; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00033.html (9,635 bytes)
5. Re: Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 08:05:37 +0200 (CEST); Yes. The changes to the interpretation of the file group class concept is explained in Section 2.2.2.28. The file group class contains all entries which are affected by the mask entry. These are the; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00036.html (10,146 bytes)
6. Problems with 2.4.19-pre9 (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:25:50 +1000; problem in my hang since both occured with 2.4.18 + different snapshots of XFS. I have compiled 2.4.19-pre9-xfs in the morning with florin@bear:/usr/local/src/linux-2.4-xfs/linux$ gcc-3.0; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00638.html (11,312 bytes)
7. ttr (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:11:58 +1000; revoke CAP_SYS_RAWIO and you can no longer access /dev/*mem /proc/kcore etc. the places where you are going to use immutable bits and hardening things down with capabilities is not GUI w; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00642.html (13,736 bytes)
8. ry about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:44:39 +0200 (CEST); ow have more of an idea of what is happening - I'll need to get some feedback from Andreas G. on setfacl(1) for this. If I have: [root@sagan xfs1]# getfacl wow user::r-x group::rw- #effec; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00643.html (9,932 bytes)
9. file system after lockup (score: 1): Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:59:17 +1000; that I recently constructed, the file system became corrupt twice and I had to abandon XFS on it. During file write operations, the system would completely lock up, requiring a reboot, an; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00671.html (9,635 bytes)
10. n (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 08:05:37 +0200 (CEST); ect this - XFS does not allocate inodes in 64K chunks, for filesystems with block sizes less than 8K it uses 8K for each inode cluster, for larger block sizes it uses one filesystem block; /archives/xfs/2002-05/msg00674.html (10,146 bytes)
11. Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:20:28 -0400 (EDT); I am wondering if this is correct behavior... Using XFS CVS tip as of this morning (4/30/02) which gives me acl 2.0.10 [jt@jtsdevel xfs_part]$ getfacl --version getfacl 2.0.10 Set up an xfs partition; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00527.html (8,658 bytes)
12. Query about setfacl behavior (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:20:28 -0400 (EDT); I am wondering if this is correct behavior... Using XFS CVS tip as of this morning (4/30/02) which gives me acl 2.0.10 [jt@jtsdevel xfs_part]$ getfacl --version getfacl 2.0.10 Set up an xfs partition; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01071.html (8,658 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]