setcifsacl: Shouldn't 0x0 be a valid mask?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I was looking at using S-1-2-3-4 to take away rights via ownership and granting no access (but not denying it either) makes sense as access is granted via group membership. Microsofts documentation seems to suggest the a 0x0 mask is valid. Quote from https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2008-R2-and-2008/dd125370(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN "When you add the Owner Rights security principal to objects, you can specify what permissions are given to the owner of an object. For example you can specify in the access control entry (ACE) of an object that the owner of a particular object is given Read permissions or you can specify NULL permissions to an object, which grants the owner of the object no permissions."

Here is example output:
# setcifsacl -a "ACL:S-1-2-3-4:0x0/0x0/0x0" bruno-test
verify_ace_mask: Invalid mask 0x0 (value 0x0)

Besides the owner rights case, I think this might also make sense in an ACL to break inheritence, though in that case there might be other ways to do that.

Unless having a 0x0 mask actually breaks things, it doesn't seem that it is a good idea to prohibit it.



[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux