Problems with ACL (seems like a bug)

UNIX for Advanced & Expert Users
1

Hi, i think i have found a bug in the unix ACL permissions.
I tested this problem in the Ubuntu 9.10 and in SLES 10 and 11, all of them with setfacl 2.2.47.

Well, I have done the following test:

1) Create a folder and set some named user, and set the same ACL entry for the Default ACL, like the following example:

mkdir dir1
setfacl -m u:rodrigo:rwx dir1/
setfacl -d -m u:rodrigo:rwx dir1/
getfacl dir1/
# file: dir1/
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
user:rodrigo:rwx
group::r-x
mask::rwx
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:user:rodrigo:rwx
default:group::r-x
default:mask::rwx
default:other::r-x

At this moment I'm getting the following result when I type ls -l:

drwxrwxr-x+ 3 root root 4096 2010-04-18 10:35 dir1

Note that the permissions for the owner group is different than the ones shows by the getfacl command!

2) Now I create a file in this directory, that should inherit the Default ACL from dir1/

cd dir1/
touch file1
getfacl dir1/
# file: file1
# owner: rodrigo
# group: rodrigo
user::rw-
user:rodrigo:rwx        #effective:rw-
group::r-x            #effective:r--
mask::rw-
other::r--

Note that some permissions are different from the ones in the Default ACL in the dir1/

My question is: why the file1's permissions are diferrent from the dir1's default ACL entries? Is this a bug?

Thanks for reading!

2

No answers?

3

The result you got is the expected result.

See Handling ACLs especially the parts about masks.

4

THANKS VERY MUCH!!!!!!

I searched for this information before posting, but found nothing.

Once again, thanks very much!

Now trying to understand the recursive ACL...:o

5

Just to add some info, you might want to have a look at the richer NFSv4 ACLs... some systems only support this kind of ACLs and will compain if you try to use POSIX ACLs. :smiley: