umask not working?

[Andrey Repin]

Greetings, David Allsopp!

> Andrey Repin wrote:
>> Greetings, David Allsopp!
>> 
>> > Is this expected behaviour:
>> 
>> > OPAM+DRA@OPAM ~
>> > $ uname -a ; umask ; touch /tmp/foo ; ls -l /tmp/foo ; mkdir /tmp/bar
>> > ; touch /tmp/bar/foo ; ls -l /tmp/bar/foo CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW OPAM
>> > 2.10.0(0.325/5/3) 2018-02-02 15:21 i686 Cygwin
>> > 0022
>> > -rw-r--r-- 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/foo
>> > -rw-rw-r--+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar/foo
>> 
>> > Why does the file /tmp/bar/foo get g+w when /tmp/foo doesn't - I'm not
>> > sure what to look at on my system to diagnose what I may have
>> > inadvertently tweaked. The directory itself is:
>> 
>> > drwxr-xr-x+ 1 OPAM+DRA OPAM+None 0 Mar 19 13:44 /tmp/bar
>> 
>> Let me guess, /tmp usertemp ?

> No - it's default mounts, so /tmp = C:\cygwin\tmp, to which my
> (non-administrative) user has write access. 

>> You have extended ACL on the object. And overall, umask is not a good
>> idea in Windows.

> "umask is not a good idea in Windows" - where's that come from?

From knowledge and experience.
umask is strictly simple POSIX modes concept. In the ACL environment it is
anything from inappropriate to disastrous, but never useful.

> (In the actual scenario where I'm being bitten by this, it's because a git
> checkout is altering files which were 644 to be 664, so whether it's
> precisely umask or not, the *change* of permissions is the problem).

Use setfacl.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Wednesday, March 21, 2018 15:32:21

Sorry for my terrible english... ТÒÐÐ¥&ö&ÆVÒ&W÷'G3¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒ÷&ö&ÆV×2æ‡FÖÀФd¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöfðФFö7VÖVçFF–ö㢇GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöFö72æ‡FÖÀÐ¥Vç7V'67&–&R–æfó¢‡GG¢òö7–wv–âæ6öÒöÖÂò7Vç7V'67&–&R×6–×ÆPÐ Ð