On 13/04/2019 22.13, L A Walsh wrote:
On 4/13/2019 5:32 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 13/04/2019 14.24, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
13.04.2019 13:36, Carlos E. R. пишет:
Yes, I thought of that this morning, but it is not my doing.
So what? You asked why you cannot access this directory and this is the answer.
Sigh. You always have to be so blunt?
==== Apparently. I gave you the same answer as Andrei, two hours earlier, but I phrased it in the form of an exploratory question and it got ignored:
On 4/12/2019 7:45 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
Just reviewed basenote. That g::--- appears odd. Does it deny access to '*' group(s). I.e. if user is a member of any other group then they are denied access?
not sure how that would get there though.
==================
Hey, I did not ignore it! I replied to it, but inside a reply to a previous post from you 5 minutes earlier. I combined my reply in just one post. I saw both yours and Andrei's when I switched on the machine in the morning, his was nearer the edge of the display and read it first. I did notice the ACLS were weird since my very first post. I said «But the line "group::---" confuses me». Those were not the ACLS permissions /I/ had wrote on the directory, they were different. And I thought that filesystem permissions had precedence over ACLS. So I posted hoping for comments. :-)
Any people often wonder why they don't see more women contributing in technical fields -- maybe they just need to be more blunt? Of course when she is, there'll be hell to pay.
I appreciate your posts, you often nail issues. So does Andrei, but he was so blunt that I ignored most of his post in anger. Anyway, the problem was caused by this command: cer@Isengard:~> time rsync --archive --acls --xattrs \ --hard-links --sparse --stats --human-readable \ --checksum /data/waterhoard/Fusion/Videos/1_Almacenar/ \ /data/My_Book/Fusion/Videos/ Notice that the process is run by "cer", and that I ask rsync to keep ACLS by using "--acls". The original directory had this set of permissions (says ls -l and getfacl): drwxrwxr-T+ 3 cer-g cer 33 Jun 21 2017 Conviction/ # file: Conviction # owner: cer-g # group: cer # flags: --t user::rwx user:wwwrun:r-x group::rwx <===== mask::rwx other::r-- and the copied directory instead had this set: drwxrwxr-T+ 3 cer cer 33 Jun 21 2017 Conviction/ # file: Conviction # owner: cer # group: cer user::rwx user:wwwrun:r-x group::--- <==== mask::rwx other::r-- The user ownership changes from cer-g to cer because the process is run by cer. Group remains the same. Filesystem permission set remains the same, but ACL permissions change. flag 't' is lost on destination because the instant I took the "photo" I had already removed it. Yesterday it was there, so ignore that. Everything is the same, except this line: "group::rwx" changes to: "group::---" I changed that manually, and now I can access the directory. I still have to run a find query to do the same on the entire archive, but that will wait. Now, why does the ACL permission have priority over the filesystem permissions? How can they be different? And why did not rsync copy them? How can I get rsync to really copy them over faithfully? Andrei hints at "mask". I don't understand. With whatever mask, the filesystem permissions were transferred by rsync perfectly, but not the ACLS. Why? -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.0 x86_64 at Telcontar)