Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:31:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> >> setfacl -m m:rwx . >> >> perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "a", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)' >> >> umask 077 >> >> perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "b", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)' >> >> getfacl a b >> [...] >> > >> > Reading the withdrawn posix 1003.1e and "man 5 acl", it seems pretty >> > clear that if a default ACL is present, it should be used, and umask >> > consulted only if it is not (so the umask should not be making a >> > difference in this case). >> > >> > The reproduction recipe above shows the minimum required to trigger it; >> > adding a more realistic default ACL (with actual entries for users) does >> > not seem to make a difference. >> >> Thanks; so combining the above with your earlier patch to 1304 we >> would have a good detection for SETFACL prerequisite? > > Yes, I think we can detect it reliably. I'd like to hear back from > ecryptfs folks before making a final patch, though. It may be that there > is some subtle reason for their behavior, and I want to make sure before > we write it off as just buggy. Sensible; thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ecryptfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
