On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:27:48PM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> * Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-19 13:58 +0300]:
> > This looks like a file-a-PR case if you are sure you didn't overlook
> > anything. To the best of my knowledge, the underlying mount point
> > permissions should affe
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:53PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>
> YT> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 04:57:57PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> YT> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, James Wyatt wrote:
> YT> >
> YT> > JW> I've seen something very similar when the perm
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
YT> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 04:57:57PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
YT> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, James Wyatt wrote:
YT> >
YT> > JW> I've seen something very similar when the permissions of the mount
point's
YT> > JW> underlieing subdirectory wasn't 777. Re
* Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-19 13:58 +0300]:
> This looks like a file-a-PR case if you are sure you didn't overlook
> anything. To the best of my knowledge, the underlying mount point
> permissions should affect nothing since the FS was mounted. But
> you didn't show us output from
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 04:57:57PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, James Wyatt wrote:
>
> JW> I've seen something very similar when the permissions of the mount point's
> JW> underlieing subdirectory wasn't 777. Really strange to see, but it was a
> JW> fallout from a compan
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, James Wyatt wrote:
JW> I've seen something very similar when the permissions of the mount point's
JW> underlieing subdirectory wasn't 777. Really strange to see, but it was a
JW> fallout from a company-wide change to make umask and directory permissions
JW> that wasn't quite i
Following myself:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
DM> Dear colleagues,
DM>
DM> I have misterious permission troubles on rather fresh RELENG_6:
DM>
DM> from root everything's ok:
[snip]
DM> but from really unprivileged user:
DM>
DM> %id
DM> uid=1008(nata) gid=1008(nata) groups=1
I've seen something very similar when the permissions of the mount point's
underlieing subdirectory wasn't 777. Really strange to see, but it was a
fallout from a company-wide change to make umask and directory permissions
that wasn't quite implemented correctly. Hope this helps - Jy@
On Thu,
