Subject: bug#17664: bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes

From: Ben Walton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:51:20 +0100

On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <[email-masked]> 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 <[email-masked]>
> Organization:   UCLA Computer Science Department
> To:     Ben Walton <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
[email-masked]
>
>
>
> 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