GNU bug report logs - #17664
Solaris acl woes

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 17664 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 17664 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Ben Walton <bdwalton <at> gmail.com>, bug-gnulib <at> gnu.org, bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: Solaris acl woes
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700

Ben Walton wrote:

> The lib/file-has-acl.c:acl_ace_nontrivial code that returns 1 is:

Why is it returning 1, exactly?  What are the value of access_masks[0, 
1] and how do they compare to the masks, and what bits are set that 
shouldn't be if we want the ACLs to be trivial?

Message #10 received at 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: 17669 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:44:57 -0700

[Forwarding this to Bug#17669 as bug-coreutils seems to have misfiled it 
under 17664; closing 17664.]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Solaris acl woes
Date: 	Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700
From: 	Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Organization: 	UCLA Computer Science Department
To: 	Ben Walton <bdwalton <at> gmail.com>, bug-gnulib <at> gnu.org, 
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org



Ben Walton wrote:

> The lib/file-has-acl.c:acl_ace_nontrivial code that returns 1 is:

Why is it returning 1, exactly?  What are the value of access_masks[0,
1] and how do they compare to the masks, and what bits are set that
shouldn't be if we want the ACLs to be trivial?

Message #13 received at 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ben Walton <bdwalton <at> gmail.com>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 17669 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:51:20 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> [Forwarding this to Bug#17669 as bug-coreutils seems to have misfiled it
under 17664; closing 17664.]
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Re: Solaris acl woes
> Date:   Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700
> From:   Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> Organization:   UCLA Computer Science Department
> To:     Ben Walton <bdwalton <at> gmail.com>, bug-gnulib <at> gnu.org,
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
>
>
>
> Ben Walton wrote:
>
>> The lib/file-has-acl.c:acl_ace_nontrivial code that returns 1 is:
>
>
> Why is it returning 1, exactly?  What are the value of access_masks[0,
> 1] and how do they compare to the masks, and what bits are set that
> shouldn't be if we want the ACLs to be trivial?

I didn't get back to this yesterday but will tonight.

What do you think about the fact that the Solaris tools seem to exhibit the
same behavior?

Thanks
-Ben

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #16 received at 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Ben Walton <bdwalton <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 17664-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 17669 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17664: bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 00:02:23 -0700

Ben Walton wrote:
> What do you think about the fact that the Solaris tools seem to exhibit the
> same behavior?

If they do this too, then I guess we're in good company.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.