Subject: bug#17664: closed (Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:46:03 +0000

Your bug report

#17664: Solaris acl woes

which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
17664: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=17664
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:44:57 -0700
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

[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?

Subject: Re: Solaris acl woes
From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
To: Ben Walton <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.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?