[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:22:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 |
On 06/03/2014 07:51 AM, Ben Walton wrote:
> 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?
I'd probably adjust the tests to first:
getfacl test.acl | setfacl -f - test.acl || skip_ "system is unable to copy
ACLs"
thanks,
Pádraig
- 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, 2014/06/03
- 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 <=
- 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