Peter Tribble wrote:
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
> What exactly is the POSIX compliance requirement here?
>
The ignoring of a users umask.
Where in POSIX does it specify the interaction of ACLs and a
user's umask?
Let me try and summarize the
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
> What exactly is the POSIX compliance requirement here?
>
The ignoring of a users umask.
Where in POSIX does it specify the interaction of ACLs and a
user's umask?
--
-Peter Tribble
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - h
>Peter Tribble wrote:
>> On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The original plan was to allow the inheritance of owner/group/other
>>> permissions. Unfortunately, during ARC reviews we were forced to remove
>>> that functionality, due to POSIX compliance and security conc
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original plan was to allow the inheritance of owner/group/other
permissions. Unfortunately, during ARC reviews we were forced to remove
that functionality, due to POSIX compliance and security concerns.
What exac
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The original plan was to allow the inheritance of owner/group/other
permissions. Unfortunately, during ARC reviews we were forced to remove
that functionality, due to POSIX compliance and security concerns.
What exactly is the POSIX compl
It looks like we're between a rock and a hard place. We want to use
ZFS for one project because of snapshots and data integrity - both
would give us considerable advantages over ufs (not to mention
filesystem size). Unfortunately, this is critical company data and the
access control has to be e
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:34:15PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
>
> >>There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the
> >>users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission
> >>rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask
> >>b
On 3/22/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with
> no success.
>
> The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be
> created
> mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I d
Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with
no success.
The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be
created
mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do
this?
# zfs set aclmode=passthrough
# mkdir dir.test
# chmo
On 3/22/07, Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that after the
> transition they have to toggle their umask before/after writing to
> certain directories or need to do a chmod, I'm sure they wanna hang me
> right on the next tree and
There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the
users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission
rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask
because of POSIX.
Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that afte
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:45:47AM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Hi Mark,
> Jens Elkner wrote:
> >cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
> ># cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
> I will open a bug on that.
Also opened a case: #37814372
> I can't reproduce your simple test.
Ehm
Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi,
2) On zfs
- e.g. as root do:
cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
# cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
I will open a bug on that.
cp -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
# cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
find dir | cpio -pu
13 matches
Mail list logo
