Your message dated Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:24:43 +0100
with message-id
<CAD=6czpnjweotx_jur9igxsnw9p83uzdnffkxk06p0a-aaw...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Close #186003 - mount ignores process umask for fat
has caused the Debian Bug report #186003,
regarding mount ignores process umask for fat
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
186003: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=186003
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: mount
Version: 2.11y-2
I'm using kernel 2.4.20. The man page for mount says, for fat, that umask's
default is "the umask of the current process". However, mount.c now (since
2.11v, it seems; is this the first version since then to make it into
testing?) does an unconditional umask(033) before attempting the mount.
This means that, for regular users to access the filing system, the fstab
entry must now include an explicit 'umask=0022' option.
For security, the current behaviour is probably better than the old,
but I would suggest that the man page should be updated (by simply
changing it to something like "the default is 0033, meaning users will only be
able to access files in the top-level directory"). Perhaps a question on
upgrade might help, if /etc/fstab contains a 'default' entry for a
fat-based FS.
I'm reporting this because it bit me, I think I have a fairly typical setup,
and the solution wasn't immediately obvious; it could hit a few other
people as they upgrade to sarge.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Walton --
-- "And though it's dark/I make it out/It says that, "Idaho welcomes you"" --
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
version: 2.24.2-1
I'm closing this bug now since the fix for the bug you reported was
included in the new (upstream) version.
If you can still reproduce it feel free to reopen and provide more info.
thanks
regards
althaser
--- End Message ---
