On 2012-06-05 12:44:39, Jeff King wrote: > 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 Reading the withdrawn posix 1003.1e and "man 5 acl", it seems pretty 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. It is likely a bug in the eCryptfs filesystem stacking code. However, using the above script, I get the same results on eCryptfs as I do on ext4 in the Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise) LTS: # file: a # owner: tyhicks # group: tyhicks user::r-- group::r-- other::r-- # file: b # owner: tyhicks # group: tyhicks user::r-- group::--- other::--- Stefan - can you specify which LTS release you're running as well as the output of `cat /proc/version_signature`? Thanks! Tyler
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
