Re: setgid umask override versus global umask change

2010-05-30 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 09:44:49AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > What, I wonder, would be the consequences of setgid directories > overring umask, rather than a system wide umask change? Use POSIX ACLs for this. Bastian -- "We have the right to survive!" "Not by killing others."

Re: setgid umask override versus global umask change

2010-05-30 Thread C. Gatzemeier
Am Sun, 30 May 2010 09:44:49 -0700 schrieb Mike Bird : > This would seem to be a trival kernel patch, whether implemented > alone or together with a /sys control to enable/disable it. > > Can anyone see any downside? I guess the interface would be quite different. Checking the current umask and

Re: setgid umask override versus global umask change

2010-05-30 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 09:44 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > What, I wonder, would be the consequences of setgid directories > overring umask, rather than a system wide umask change? > > We could leave umask set to 0022 but when creating files and > directories in setgid directories the 0020 bit of the u

setgid umask override versus global umask change

2010-05-30 Thread Mike Bird
What, I wonder, would be the consequences of setgid directories overring umask, rather than a system wide umask change? We could leave umask set to 0022 but when creating files and directories in setgid directories the 0020 bit of the umask would itself be masked out. This would seem to localize