X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=GdlCZs80It9a8wHa
	bwrn01xjK7q0pfZ15Xqj5HiNI9fDLH9R/bvV+xynFyUg1qRqk56PhIvHI+jhx6YK
	4cfp39aijAHZdG0cgMcddj5DpHSd4Qf+o8p1Obn2qOe5K6TnJ9n2el7YdOa4No6n
	zi9zmobUNIG28mziGFYTu2GImvM=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=eNbPJJHN+neBiEJpMtKQsO
	FRIV0=; b=MbK3DVGKggCLUQDG3Jlx5d70T3gls1Y8gMEjEwGTCRbEueWw7N1TWn
	hJCOpFYhsD6Gp8ltsYYfkNTTgIFSDLBMj46Egzc07heIr/EDopLY4Zpdv/eU4Rf+
	qBryAHuvUU13YyqHiK6UypuZ+RWIUAC+nVaiA45VgYTb0JHy+fk4c=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=UD:cs.unc.edu, UD:unc.edu
X-HELO:	limerock03.mail.cornell.edu
X-CornellRouted:	This message has been Routed already.
Subject:	Re: umask not working?
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<000f01d3bf80$a2e0d8c0$e8a28a40$@cl.cam.ac.uk> <f1cb6a11-974c-718c-27c4-7224e3ac4b6a AT cornell DOT edu> <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D90189B91F93 AT Remus DOT metastack DOT local>
From:	Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
Message-ID:	<21cc08fa-d68f-619f-5c11-ff1c903c74d0@cornell.edu>
Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:24:57 -0400
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D90189B91F93@Remus.metastack.local>
X-PMX-Cornell-Gauge:	Gauge=XXXXX
X-PMX-CORNELL-AUTH-RESULTS:	dkim-out=none;
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 3/21/2018 6:36 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
> Ken Brown
>> On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
>>> Is this expected behaviour:
>>>
>>> OPAM+DRA AT OPAM ~
>>> $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
>>> ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
>>> 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
>>> 0022
>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/foo
>>> -rw-rw-r--+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar/foo
>>>
>>> Why does the file /tmp/bar/foo get g+w when /tmp/foo doesn't - I'm not
>>> sure what to look at on my system to diagnose what I may have
>>> inadvertently tweaked. The directory itself is:
>>>
>>> drwxr-xr-x+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar
>>
>> See if this helps:
>>
>>     https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.using.same-with-permissions
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I wonder from it if this could be to do with the Cygwin installation being old (but upgraded). I tried on the same machine creating another installation to C:\cygwin2 (which behaves as Roger Wells noted) and then ran getfacl /tmp on each:
> 
> Old installation:
> 
> # file: /tmp
> # owner: OPAM+DRA-Admin
> # group: OPAM+None
> user::rwx
> user:OPAM+DRA:rwx
> group::r-x
> mask:rwx
> other:r-x
> default:user::rwx
> default:user:OPAM+DRA:rwx
> default:group::r-x
> default:mask:rwx
> default:other:r-x
> 
> Fresh installation:
> 
> # file: /tmp
> # owner: OPAM+DRA-Admin
> # group: OPAM+None
> # flags: --t
> user::rwx
> group::rwx
> other:rwx
> default:user::rwx
> default:group::r-x
> default:other:r-x
> 
> I expect that the extra OPAM+DRA:rwx on the old installation was manually added by me, years ago. What are the "mask" entries all about?
> 
> The default:mask entry seems to be the crucial one, as if I do setfacl default:mask:rwx /tmp on the fresh installation, then I get the same behaviour as on the old installation.
> 
> However, I'm struggling to find references for either what these mask entries are, or how they ever appeared?

If you search the web for "Posix acl mask" you'll find lots of 
information.  Here's one that seems pretty good:

   https://cs.unc.edu/help-article/posix-acls-in-linux/

Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -