Re: ACL question
From: Doug Hughes (doug_at_Eng.Auburn.EDU)Date: 07/18/01
- Vorherige Nachricht: Stu Baker: "ACL question"
- Als Antwort auf: Stu Baker: "ACL question"
- Nächste im Thread: Darren Moffat: "Re: ACL question"
- Nachrichten sortiert nach: [ Datum ] [ Thread ] [ Subject ] [ Autor ] [ Attachement ]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Stu Baker wrote:
> I am trying to figure out the appropriate default ACLs for a
> directory so that when somebody creates new files/directories
> underneath that directory it will inherit the ACLs from the parent
> directory.
>
> I tried this command:
> setfacl -s u::rwx,g::rwx,o:r-x,m:rwx,d:u::rw-,d:g::rw-,d:o:r-x,d:m:rwx testdir
>
> And then issued the command giving ACLs to the particular group I
> want to have permissions (in addition to the owner and group)
>
> setfacl -m g:lms:rwx testdir
>
> However subsequent file and directories created underneath the parent
> assume the default umask of the user, they don't seem to inherit the
> ACLs of the parent directory.
>
> Is what I want to do possible? if so what am I doing wrong?
FWIW: i've seen the same behavior and haven't found a way around it.
(except when there's only one group setting g+s on the directory
to force it to that group in question helps)
Doug
P.S. don't you really want d:u::rwx,d:g::rwx (otherwise newly
created directories might get messed up without execute permissions)
- Vorherige Nachricht: Stu Baker: "ACL question"
- Als Antwort auf: Stu Baker: "ACL question"
- Nächste im Thread: Darren Moffat: "Re: ACL question"
- Nachrichten sortiert nach: [ Datum ] [ Thread ] [ Subject ] [ Autor ] [ Attachement ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
