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:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=jcpBvCL38T1L+saMj5eaWL080GH0M
	Q9aTxadlzFtaL0gR2isBqrWuTLGPPwsF+UFmXw5WjOiWtUA/K7soJNn5husAahkM
	zB4Jbj5vc2mUuslSKiGAVN3eF8n+WEcO5OUK7vy37mHH1brPX88CeV2KBXqOgrUD
	/GMZQNxbtwz+hQ=
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:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:mime-version; s=default; bh=6FMWA+mWi+zw/mQnoZSVC1K2alQ=; b=ynX
	lH46m3FlPrdaG6YNEdpIgGq9WKrx9e+p98NJ9+y/hJTMEZrNW5g9klY7vByivdQU
	C0vujije24RPZOB9MjdCU27333A+04v4VF7AQU76vpgWZDwojN09wAWPdiEx6qDH
	H6jaac419Mehj5Ngy7X9e5KopQ5eHBDpLPcwi3D4=
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=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:local, wells, Wells, rx
X-HELO: outmail149112.authsmtp.co.uk
From: David Allsopp <David DOT Allsopp AT cl DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
To: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>, "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: umask not working?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:36:06 +0000
Message-ID: <E51C5B015DBD1348A1D85763337FB6D90189B91F93@Remus.metastack.local>
References: <000f01d3bf80$a2e0d8c0$e8a28a40$@cl.cam.ac.uk> <f1cb6a11-974c-718c-27c4-7224e3ac4b6a AT cornell DOT edu>
In-Reply-To: <f1cb6a11-974c-718c-27c4-7224e3ac4b6a@cornell.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Server-Quench: a9e87882-2cf3-11e8-8106-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd1ZAARAlZ5RRob BmUtCCtbTh09DhZI RxQKKE1TKxwUVhJU L0JGL0JXPR1GBEcD Anl2ChZLUl1wUXN0 awBSaw9dZQRMXgZ0 UUhMXFBTFhtpABge BBsBU1c1dXk3KXsv YEZmWHlfXgp9ckZ/ DB9dQGUBbW9idWJM BkNFdgIBeB5Cfx9D d1B/VXYMZmNUN3tp TxkJEmJ5IDBWMycd RAYRZU0VW0UKGDFr LwAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633634383431.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 213.105.212.114/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system.
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id w2LAaOFu025898

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?

Thanks!


David 


--
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