[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 19:27:04 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 |
On 06/03/2014 07:07 PM, Ben Walton wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2014 11:22 AM, "Pádraig Brady" <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/03/2014 07:51 AM, Ben Walton wrote:
>> > On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <address@hidden
>> > <mailto: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 <mailto:address@hidden>>
>> >> Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
>> >> To: Ben Walton <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>>,
>> >> address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>,
>> > address@hidden <mailto: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"
>>
>
> Not a bad idea, but those tools have different names on different systems and
> possibly different calling conventions.
>
> If this is a preferred approach, at the very least, a presence check for the
> binary needs to wrap the precondition.
We already have that in require_acl_
Though yes it's very awkward that there is no standard here.
This is how one copies ACLs on the systems I've just checked:
solaris: getfacl file1 | setfacl -f - file2
linux: getfacl file1 | setfacl --set-file=- file2
freebsd: getfacl file1 | setfacl -b -n -M - file2
So not ideal at all.
Which 6 tests did this affect BTW?
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, 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 <=
- bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes, Ben Walton, 2014/06/03