Ken Brown > On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote: > > Is this expected behaviour: > > > > OPAM+DRA@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
