X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:33:12 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: acl_trivial? Message-ID: <20070717153312.GI20662@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <469CC5CE DOT 1010007 AT byu DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <469CC5CE.1010007@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Jul 17 07:36, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Coreutils would like to use acl_trivial(3) in ls(1), in order to more > easily decide whether to print a trailing + in the mode section. > > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2246/6n4i34qck?a=view Huh? The description is a bit wrong, isn't it? Quote: "A POSIX draft ACL is trivial if it has greater than MIN_ACL_ENTRIES. An NFSv4/ZFS-style ACL is trivial if it either has entries other than owner@, group@, and everyone@, has inheritance flags set, or is not ordered in a manner that meets POSIX access control requirements." Looks like they missed to add a "not" twice... > directories - currently, coreutils thinks that ALL directories have > non-trivial ACLs, thanks to the 3 default:*:* entries making it so that > there are more than MIN_ACL_ENTRIES associated with each directory; but in > reality, it seems like this situation should qualify as trivial: > > $ getfacl . > # file: . > # owner: eblake > # group: None > user::rwx > group::r-x > mask:rwx > other:r-x > default:user::rwx > default:group::--- > default:other:--- > $ ls -ld . > drwxr-xr-x+ 14 eblake None 0 Jul 14 22:27 . There's a "... has inheritance flags set" in the above quoted paragraph. And why is the above a trivial ACL but not $ getfacl . # file: . # owner: eblake # group: None user::rwx group::r-x mask:rwx other:r-x default:user::rwx default:group::r-x default:other:r-x ? And what if the default entries are missing, is the directory then suddenly non-trivial? In other words, how do you decide over triviality in case of Windows ACLs? What's the exact rule you're thinking of? OTOH, we didn't have complaints about the '+' for some time now so people got used to it, apparently. What's the actual gain of adding this function? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/