[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Re: chacl question

To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: chacl question
From: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:28:35 +1000
Cc: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20010717165543.A21737@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from ak@xxxxxxx on Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 04:55:43PM +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107172125090.467-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010717165543.A21737@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 04:55:43PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:29:01PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> > But it says:
> > 
> > chacl: "u::rwx,g::,o::,u:jijo:r-x,m::r-x" is an invalid ACL specification.
> You cannot have multiple 'u' specifikations.
Yes you can :)
You can't have multiple USER_OBJ ACE specifications (i.e. 'u::')
but you certainly need multiple USER ACE specs (hence the multiple 'u').
As already pointed out, you need permissions specified for all ACEs
(i.e. for GROUP and OTHER as well).

> Similar problems have also annoyed, annoyed me enough to produce the following
> patch which adds somewhat usable error reporting to libacl.
> Just apply it below cmd/chacl and get at least usable error messages.
> It also fixes one bug in the manpage.
I'll have a look over it soon, 
run the qa tests and check it in...:)


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>