[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
From: |
Ben Walton |
Subject: |
bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:51:20 +0100 |
On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden>
> Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
> To: Ben Walton <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
address@hidden
>
>
>
> 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
- bug#17669: Solaris acl woes, Ben Walton, 2014/06/02
- bug#17664: Solaris acl woes, Paul Eggert, 2014/06/02
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Paul Eggert, 2014/06/02
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes,
Ben Walton <=
- bug#17669: bug#17664: bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Paul Eggert, 2014/06/03
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Pádraig Brady, 2014/06/03
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Paul Eggert, 2014/06/03
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Ben Walton, 2014/06/03
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Pádraig Brady, 2014/06/03
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Ben Walton, 2014/06/03