Ken Brown
On 3/19/2018 8:48 AM, David Allsopp wrote:
Is this expected behaviour:
OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
$ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
0022
-rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/foo
-rw-rw-r--+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar/foo
Why does the file /tmp/bar/foo get g+w when /tmp/foo doesn't - I'm not
sure what to look at on my system to diagnose what I may have
inadvertently tweaked. The directory itself is:
drwxr-xr-x+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar
See if this helps:
https://cygwin.com/faq/faq.html#faq.using.same-with-permissions
Thanks for the pointer. I wonder from it if this could be to do with the Cygwin installation being old (but upgraded). I tried on the same machine creating another installation to C:\cygwin2 (which behaves as Roger Wells noted) and then ran getfacl /tmp on each:
Old installation:
# file: /tmp
# owner: OPAM+DRA-Admin
# group: OPAM+None
user::rwx
user:OPAM+DRA:rwx
group::r-x
mask:rwx
other:r-x
default:user::rwx
default:user:OPAM+DRA:rwx
default:group::r-x
default:mask:rwx
default:other:r-x
Fresh installation:
# file: /tmp
# owner: OPAM+DRA-Admin
# group: OPAM+None
# flags: --t
user::rwx
group::rwx
other:rwx
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other:r-x
I expect that the extra OPAM+DRA:rwx on the old installation was manually added by me, years ago. What are the "mask" entries all about?
The default:mask entry seems to be the crucial one, as if I do setfacl default:mask:rwx /tmp on the fresh installation, then I get the same behaviour as on the old installation.
However, I'm struggling to find references for either what these mask entries are, or how they ever appeared?