Re: Bugreport on Ubuntu LTS: not ok - 2 Objects creation does not break ACLs with restrictive umask

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 5, 2012, 16:44 UTC
Message-ID: <20120605164439.GA2694@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vpq9dpvnp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:31:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> >>   setfacl -m m:rwx .
> >>   perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "a", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)'
> >>   umask 077
> >>   perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "b", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)'
> >>   getfacl a b
> [...]
> >
> > Reading the withdrawn posix 1003.1e and "man 5 acl", it seems pretty
> > clear that if a default ACL is present, it should be used, and umask
> > consulted only if it is not (so the umask should not be making a
> > difference in this case).
> >
> > The reproduction recipe above shows the minimum required to trigger it;
> > adding a more realistic default ACL (with actual entries for users) does
> > not seem to make a difference.
> 
> Thanks; so combining the above with your earlier patch to 1304 we
> would have a good detection for SETFACL prerequisite?

Yes, I think we can detect it reliably. I'd like to hear back from ecryptfs folks before making a final patch, though. It may be that there is some subtle reason for their behavior, and I want to make sure before we write it off as just buggy.

-Peff