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 Reading the withdrawn posix 1003.1e and "man 5 acl", it seems pretty 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. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html