On 11/16/12 17:15, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I have been tracking down a problem with zfs diff that reveals
itself variously as a hang (unkillable process), panic or error,
depending on the ZFS kernel version but seems to be caused by
corruption within the pool. I am using FreeBSD but the issue looks
On 11/19/12 1:14 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
On 2012-11-19 20:58, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
There is probably nothing wrong with the snapshots. This is a bug in
ZFS diff. The ZPL parent pointer is only guaranteed to be correct for
directory objects. What you probably have is a file that was hard
On 6/1/11 12:51 AM, lance wilson wrote:
The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server
are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files that
don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file permissions. Can
someone please
On 4/21/10 6:49 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Williams
And you can
On 04/21/10 08:45 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Mark Shellenbaum [mailto:mark.shellenb...@oracle.com]
You can create/destroy/rename snapshots via mkdir, rmdir, mv inside
the
.zfs/snapshot directory, however, it will only work if you're running
the
command locally. It will not work
Thomas Burgess wrote:
I've got a strange issue, If this is covered elsewhere, i apologize in
advance for my newbness
I've got a couple ZFS filesystems shared cifs and nfs, i've managed to
get ACL's working the way i want, provided things are accessed via cifs
and nfs.
If i create a new
Paul B. Henson wrote:
We're running Solaris 10 with ZFS to provide home and group directory file
space over NFSv4. We've run into an interoperability issue between the
Solaris NFS server and the Linux NFS client regarding the sgid bit on
directories and assigning appropriate group ownership on
Roland Mainz wrote:
Hi!
Does anyone know out-of-the-head whether tmpfs supports ACLs - and if
yes - which type(s) of ACLs (e.g. NFSv4/ZFS, old POSIX draft ACLs
etc.) are supported by tmpfs ?
tmpfs does not support ACLs
see _PC_ACL_ENABLED in [f]pathconf(2). You can query the file
Christian Flaig wrote:
Hello,
I got a very strange problem here, tried out many things, can't solve it.
I run a virtual machine via VirtualBox 2.2.4, with Ubuntu 9.04. OpenSolaris as the host
is 2009-06, with snv118. Now I try to mount (via CIFS) a share in Ubuntu from
OpenSolaris. Mounting
Robert Lawhead wrote:
I recently tried to post this as a bug, and received an auto-ack, but can't
tell whether its been accepted. Does this seem like a bug to anyone else?
Default for zfs list is now to show only filesystems. However, a `zfs list` or
`zfs list -t filesystem` shows
dick hoogendijk wrote:
# zfs create store/snaps
# zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps
# share
-...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen
arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906
zsh: permission denied:
Chris Murray wrote:
Hello,
Hopefully a quick and easy permissions problem here, but I'm stumped and
quickly reached the end of my Unix knowledge.
I have a ZFS filesystem called fs/itunes on pool zp. In it, the iTunes
music folder contained a load of other folders - one for each artist.
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
There has been no forward progress on the ZFS read performance issue for
a week now. A 4X reduction in file read performance due to having read
the file before is terrible, and of course the situation is considerably
worse if the file was previously mmapped as well.
John Keiffer wrote:
Mark,
Does it matter that the share IS mounted nfsv4?
I'm not sure. In a cursory look at the nfsv4 server code it looks like
it would also fabricate an ACL. I don't know what translations if any
the linux client does before sending it over to Solaris. I will CC
Nils Goroll wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed that Mark Shellenbaum has replied to the same question in
a thread ACL not being inherited correctly on zfs-discuss.
Sorry for the noise.
Out of curiosity, I would still be interested in answers to this question:
It there a reason why inheritable
Thomas Fili wrote:
Hi @all,
with ZFS its recommended to create a new filesystem, for example for each user
to give them a home directory.
So far, so good. The homes should be under tank/export/home/staff and my
intention is to restrict the ACL rights so only the user self can access his
own
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Hi all,
I'm setting up a new fileserver, and while I'm not planning on enabling
CIFS right away, I know I will in the future.
I know there are several ZFS properties or attributes that affect how
CIFS behaves. I seem to recall that at least one of those needs to be
set
Andrew Watkins wrote:
[I did post this in NFS, but I think it should be here]
I am playing with ACL on snv_114 (and Storage 7110) system and I have
noticed that strange things are happing to ACL's or am I doing something
wrong.
When you create a new sub-directory or file the ACL's seem to
Drew Balfour wrote:
I have OSol 2009.06 (b111a), and I'm not sure I'm getting this ZFS ACL
thing:
%whoami
abalfour
% ls -V file
--+ 1 abalfour root 1474560 May 11 18:43 file
owner@:-w--d--A-W-C--:---:deny
according to that ACL I shouldn't be able to write
abalf...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 21, 2009 11:08am, Mark Shellenbaum mark.shellenb...@sun.com wrote:
Nope, the owner always has the ability to fix broken permissions on
files. Otherwise the owner would be locked out of their own files.
Nuts; That's what I was trying to do; lock owners
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On page 202 of the December 2008 Solaris ZFS Administration Guide, it says
the ACLs are processed in order. Then it says that an explicit allow ends
processing (or at least it says that a later deny can't override an
earlier allow).
But that's all it says; it doesn't
Asif Iqbal wrote:
How do I make sure any new file inherit the group permission from its
directory in ZFS?
I tried to add a non-trivial acl (index id 3), but the files
permissions are still following the users umask
# ls -dv folder/
drwxrwxr-x+ 2 root other 3 Mar 6 02:09 folder/
.
On 02/02/09 08:55, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
The time has come to review the current Contributor and Core
contributor
grants for ZFS. Since all of the ZFS core contributors grants are
set
to expire on 02-24-2009 we need to renew the members that are still
contributing at core contributor
to both Contributor and Core contributor levels.
First the current list of Core contributors:
Bill Moore (billm)
Cindy Swearingen (cindys)
Lori M. Alt (lalt)
Mark Shellenbaum (marks)
Mark Maybee (maybee)
Matthew A. Ahrens (ahrens)
Neil V. Perrin (perrin)
Jeff Bonwick (bonwick)
Eric Schrock (eschrock
Dustin Marquess wrote:
Forgot to add that a truss shows:
14960: lstat64(/a1000/.., 0xFFBFF7E8)Err#13 EACCES
[file_dac_search]
ppriv shows the error in UFS:
$ ppriv -e -D -s -file_dac_search ls -ld /a1000/..
ls[15022]: missing privilege file_dac_search (euid = 100,
Roger wrote:
Hi!
Im running popensolaris b101 and ive made a zfs pool called tank and an fs
inside of it tank/public, ive shared it with smb.
zfs set sharesmb=on tank/public
im using solaris smb and not samba.
The problem is this. When i connect and create a file its readable to
Louis Hoefler wrote:
But what is the recommended way to share a directory?
You should be able to use sharemgr directly to just share a directory
and not an entire file system. If you do that you shouldn't set the
sharesmb property, though. Use either the sharesmb property or use
sharemgr
Ian Collins wrote:
satya wrote:
Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of
pax utility do the trick?
pax should, according to
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view
pax isn't ACL aware. It does handle extended attributes, though.
Here
that this is intended behavior to comply with POSIX. As the
author of the thread mentioned, I would like to see an inheritance mode that
completely ignores POSIX. The thread ends with Mark Shellenbaum commenting
that he will fasttrack the behavior that many people want. It is not clear
to me
Vahid Moghaddasi wrote:
Hi all,
We have this problem of losing permission and ownership of the raw zfs
devices when the pool is moved from one system to another.
The owner is an application account and each time we failover to another
machine, have to set the permission and owner manually
Brian Cameron wrote:
Mark Others:
I think you may have misunderstood what people were suggesting. They
weren't suggesting changing the mode of the file, but using chmod(1M) to
add/modify ZFS ACLs on the device file.
chmod A+user:gdm:rwx:allow file
See chmod(1M) or the zfs admin guide
You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually
adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs
you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it
long enough you will eventually get an error back when you reach the
ACE limit on
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
You should probably make sure that you just don't keep continually
adding the same entry over and over again to the ACL. With NFSv4 ACLs
you can insert the same entry multiple times and if you keep doing it
long enough you will eventually get an error back when you
ACL's seemed a good solution since it leaves the overall ownership
and permissions of the device the same, but just adds the gdm user as
having permission to access the device as needed. Is there any way to
get this same sort of behavior when using ZFS.
I think you may have
However, I notice that when using ZFS on Indiana the above commands fail
with the following error:
File system doesn't support aclent_t style ACL's.
See acl(5) for more information on ACL styles support by Solaris.
What is the appropriate command to use with ZFS?
You can use
Laurent Blume wrote:
Hi all,
It seems a user managed to create files dated Oct 16, 2057, from a Linux
distro that mounted by NFS the volumes on an x2100 server running S10U5, with
ZFS volumes.
The problem is, those files are completely unreachable on the S10 server:
# ls -l
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Mark Shellenbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Bartley wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Mark Shellenbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Bartley wrote:
Hello,
We're repeatedly seeing a kernel panic on our disk server. We've been
unable to determine
dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:47:52 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dick hoogendijk wrote:
As I understand ufsrestore is independent of the FS it writes to.
So, I wonder, is it possible to do a pipe from a UFS to a ZFS
Cyril ROUHASSIA wrote:
Dear all,
From an implementation point of view, I really do not understand where
the list of all datasets lie. I know how to to get from the uberblock
to the active dataset (through MOS and so on) but once there how to
get to others datasets located in the
David Bartley wrote:
Hello,
We're repeatedly seeing a kernel panic on our disk server. We've been unable
to determine exactly how to reproduce it, but it seems to occur fairly
frequently (a few times a day). This is happening on both snv91 and snv96.
We've run 'zpool scrub' and this has
David Bartley wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Mark Shellenbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Bartley wrote:
Hello,
We're repeatedly seeing a kernel panic on our disk server. We've been
unable to determine exactly how to reproduce it, but it seems to occur
fairly frequently (a few
mike wrote:
I have a weekly scrub setup, and I've seen at least once now where it
says don't snapshot while scrubbing
Is this a data integrity issue, or will it make one or both of the
processes take longer?
Thank
That problem has been fixed in build 94.
Here is the bug that people
Ian Collins wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
I have a pretty standard ZFS boot AMD64 desktop. A the moment, most ZFS
related commands are hanging (can't be killed) . Running 'truss share'
the last few lines I see are:
Can you provide a kernel thread list report? You can
Ian Collins wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Paul B. Henson wrote:
Are the libsec undocumented interfaces likely to remain the same when the
acl_t structure changes? They will still require adding the prototypes to
my code so the compiler knows what to make of them, but less chance of
breakage
Ian Collins wrote:
I have a pretty standard ZFS boot AMD64 desktop. A the moment, most ZFS
related commands are hanging (can't be killed) . Running 'truss share'
the last few lines I see are:
Can you provide a kernel thread list report? You can use mdb -k to get
that. Once in mdb type
Paul B. Henson wrote:
I asked a while back if there was any utility function to evaluate a ZFS
ACL, I didn't get much of a response and was unable to find anything, so
decided to implement my own C code.
It appears the acl_get() function is a convenient way to read the ACL;
however, I don't
Joe Blount wrote:
Is the acl_t intentionally designed to be opaque?
Yes, its meant to be opaque.
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
Will old versions be supported? For example, if ADM
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/adm/ treats it
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
The layout of the acl_t will likely change in the not too distant future.
[...]
of the ACL, but they aren't documented interfaces, such as acl_data()
which will return you the pointer to the array of ace_t's and acl_cnt
Rob wrote:
Hello All!
Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset of ACLs? e.g., if i have a
directory full of folders that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i
want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can i force a reapply of
all ACLs?
There isn't an easy
Rob wrote:
Rob wrote:
Hello All!
Is there a command to force a re-inheritance/reset
of ACLs? e.g., if i have a directory full of folders
that have been created with inherited ACLs, and i
want to change the ACLs on the parent folder, how can
i force a reapply of all ACLs?
There
Todd E. Moore wrote:
I'm used to using fstat() and other calls to get atime, ctime, and mtime
values, but I understand that the znode also stores a files creation
time in crtime attribute.
Which system call can I use to retrieve this information?
You can use the getattrat() or
Justin Vassallo wrote:
Thanks Michale,
that got me through to second round :) I eventually added /sbin to my
/etc/profile to avoid the mistake in future.
So the issue is now with the USER rights on the zfs. How can I grant USER
rights on this zfs? Is upgrading to a zfs which supports 'zfs
Martin Gisch wrote:
I noticed an oddity on my 2008.05 box today.
Created a new zfs file system that I was planning to nfs share out to an old
FreeBSD box, after I put sharenfs=on for it, I noticed there was a bunch of
others shared too:
-bash-3.2# dfshares -F nfs
RESOURCE
Shriram Agarwal wrote:
i need to get inodeno on ZFS and i am not able to find how to find it in
kernel at vfs layer.
i have vnode pointer and i am doing VTOZ to get znode but printing z_id
from znode pointer
gives me deadbeef(unitialized) , can somebody point me how to get that?
i
Ben Rockwood wrote:
Can someone please clarify the ability to utilize ACL's over NFSv3 from a ZFS
share? I can getfacl but I can't setfacl. I can't find any
documentation in this regard. My suspicion is that that ZFS Shares must be
NFSv4 in order to utilize ACLs but I'm hoping this isn't
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The closest equivalent to ufsdump and ufsrestore is star.
I very strongly disagree. The closest ZFS equivalent to ufsdump is 'zfs
send'. 'zfs send' like ufsdump has initmiate awareness of the the
actual on disk layout and
kevin kramer wrote:
that is my thread and I'm still having issues even after applying that patch.
It just came up again this week.
[locahost] uname -a
Linux dv-121-25.centtech.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST
2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[localhost] cat
Andy Lubel wrote:
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
we already have the ability to allow users to create/destroy snapshots
over NFS. Look at the ZFS delegated administration model. If all you
want is snapshot creation/destruction then you will need to grant
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
we already have the ability to allow users to create/destroy snapshots
over NFS. Look at the ZFS delegated administration model. If all you
want is snapshot creation/destruction then you will need to grant
snapshot,mount
Paul B. Henson wrote:
One of my colleagues was testing our ZFS prototype (S10U4), and was
wondering what was the limit for ACE's on a ZFS ACL.
Empirically, he determined that he could not add more than 1024 ACE's
either locally or via NFSv4 from a Solaris client (from a Linux NFSv4
client,
Marc Bevand wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum Mark.Shellenbaum at Sun.COM writes:
# ls -V a
-rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Mar 19 13:04 a
owner@:--:--I:allow
group@:--:--I:allow
everyone@:--:--I:allow
Sachin Palav wrote:
We are using this server as NFS SAMBA server, we created ZFS file systems
considering it features. But un-fortunately we are experiencing problems with
every NFS client (almost all version os UNIX (AIX/Linux/HP). So I have now
set the server to use NFS version 2, as
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Sachin Palav wrote:
Hello Friends,
Can some please let me know how I can disable ZFS ACL completely. I want to
use ZFS with plain unix permission without ACL support
I'm really curious as to why you want to do that but it seems that
Here is a draft of the fast track to allow ZFS to inherit mode
permission via owner@, group@ and everyone@
-Mark
SUMMARY:
This proposal is to change the ZFS ACL inheritance rules
when the zfs acl property is set to passthrough.
PROBLEM:
The ZFS ACL
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
I suspect at least some of the membership would be interested in this
sort of extension and it shouldn't be that hard to sell if it's not the
default behavior and it's clearly documented that turning it on (probably
on a
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
I will go ahead and do a fastrack to get the behavior that many people
want. Basically, if inheritable ACEs are present for owner@, group@,
everyone@ then the inherited ACE permissions will override the requested
mode
Jens Elkner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:33:57AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Paul B. Henson wrote:
I'm currently prototyping a Solaris file server that will dish out user
home directories and group project directories via NFSv4 and Samba.
Why not the in kernel CIFS server ?
E.g.,
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
this behavior is only possible from a Windows client. When creating
files from unix the POSIX rules apply and the requestors mode must be
honored, which results in the owner@, group@, and everyone@ entries
always being set
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
That is not correct. The deny entries are necessary for POSIX semantics.
In POSIX are only allowed to pick up permissions from the owner, group or
other class. You can't pick up part of the permissions you are looking
kevin kramer wrote:
client CentOS 5.1 latest kernel
mount option for zfs filesystem =
rw,nosuid,nodev,remount,noatime,nfsvers=3,udp,intr,bg
,hard,rsize=8192,wsize=8192
directory and parent owned by user and users GID, 775
on client touch
Kevin Kramer wrote:
no. I'm running on a Dell 1950. I'm updating the system now. Do my
aclmode,aclinherit look right? I've read the guide and think this is my
best option.
thanks.
the ACL properties have no bearing on this. The issue is that you are
using an NFSv3 client and its asking
Kevin Kramer wrote:
client is CentOS 5.1
server is running Sol10
You should look into applying the patch I mentioned earlier on your S10
server.
-Mark
Is your ZFS file system on an S10 system?
You are most likely seeing this bug.
6528189 cp -p invalid argument issue
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 13:43 -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
How was it MVFS could do this without any changes to the shells or any
other programs?
I ClearCase could 'grep FOO /dir1/dir2/file@@/main/*' to see which
version of 'file' added FOO.
Maurilio Longo wrote:
Hi,
I'm testing ZFS+CIFS server using nexenta core rc4, everything seems fine and
speed is also ok, but DOS programs don't see sub-dirs (command.com sees them,
though).
I've set casesensitivity=insensitive in the ZFS filesystem that I'm sharing.
I've made this
I'm seeing some other issues with delegation+iscisi with the latest
Nevada bits. I will need to investigate them and will likely raise some
bugs once I figure out whats going on.
Thanks. For now my sudo wrapper works, but I would be very happy if this
can be sorted out without any hacks.
Stefan de Konink wrote:
I have created a user 'block' which has the following ZFS permissions on
tank/iscsi_luns.
-bash-3.2# zfs allow tank/iscsi_luns
-
Local+Descendent permissions on (tank/iscsi_luns)
user block
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Hi Mark,
Local+Descendent permissions on (tank/iscsi_luns)
user block
clone,create,destroy,mount,mountpoint,promote,rename,reservation,rollback,share,shareiscsi,snapshot,volsize
(added share)
The strange thing is that the command seems to fail:
What
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:27:18AM -0800, Tim Cook wrote:
So now that cifs has finally been released in b77, anyone happen to
It hasn't been released. It was integrated into build 77.
have any documentation on setup. I know the initial share is
The
Dick Davies wrote:
Does anybody know if the upcoming CIFS integration in b77 will
provide a mechanism for users to see snapshots (like .zfs/snapshot/
does for NFS)?
I don't believe that the version in build 77 will traverse down .zfs
It would be a good thing to add though.
-Mark
Razvan Corneliu VILT wrote:
Sounds like the right solution to my problem in it solves a few problems, but
I am rather curious about how it would integrate with a potential Samba
server running on the same system (in case someone needs a domain controller
as well as a fileserver).
1 -
Rayson Ho wrote:
Does anyone know whether the following (copied from Wikipedia) is true or
not??
Solaris has a project called CIFS client for Solaris, based on the
Mac OS X smbfs.
Rayson
Yes, that is true.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/smbfs/
-Mark
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
Nico
The *real* ZFS delegation code was integrated into Nevada this morning.
I've placed a little overview in my blog.
http://blogs.sun.com/marks
-Mark
Haik Aftandilian wrote:
Is it possible to give a user control of a ZFS filesystem such that the user can create
their own file systems within it, take snapshots, etc.?
Thanks,
Haik
Support for this should be available within the next month or two. You
should check out PSARC/2006/465
Gavin Maltby wrote:
Hi,
Is it expected that if I have filesystem tank/foo and tank/foo/bar
(mounted under /tank) then in order to be able to browse via
/net down into tank/foo/bar I need to have group/other permissions
on /tank/foo open?
You are running into bug:
4697677 permissions of
Carson Gaspar wrote:
we give the right to add folder to user foo.(this
user can not delete anything as a default) After that
we give the right create file.And then user foo gains
delete everthing. How come is it possible.
Even though we add another rule like
0:user:foo:delete_child/delete:deny.
Carson Gaspar wrote:
we give the right to add folder to user foo.(this
user can not delete anything as a default) After that
we give the right create file.And then user foo gains
delete everthing. How come is it possible.
Even though we add another rule like
0:user:foo:delete_child/delete:deny.
Carson Gaspar wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Can you post the full ACL on the directory and on the file you are
being allowed to delete.
Simple test:
carson:gandalf 2 $ uname -a
SunOS gandalf.taltos.org 5.10 Generic_125101-02 i86pc i386 i86pc
carson:gandalf 0 $ mkdir foo
carson:gandalf 0
Robert Thurlow wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
Peter Eriksson wrote:
ufsdump/ufsrestore doesn't restore the ACLs so that doesn't work,
same with rsync.
ufsrestore obviously won't work on ZFS.
ufsrestore works fine; it only reads from a 'ufsdump' format medium and
writes through generic
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The original plan was to allow the inheritance of owner/group/other
permissions. Unfortunately, during ARC reviews we were forced to remove
that functionality, due to POSIX compliance and security concerns.
What
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 3/23/07, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
What exactly is the POSIX compliance requirement here?
The ignoring of a users umask.
Where in POSIX does it specify the interaction of ACLs and a
user's umask?
Let me try and summarize
Jens Elkner wrote:
Hi,
2) On zfs
- e.g. as root do:
cp -P -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
# cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
I will open a bug on that.
cp -r -p /dir /pool1/zfsdir
# cp: Insufficient memory to save acl entry
find dir | cpio
There is one big difference which you see here. ZFS always honors the
users umask, and that is why the file was created with 644 permission
rather than 664 as UFS did. ZFS has to always apply the users umask
because of POSIX.
Wow, that's a big show stopper! If I tell the users, that
Please explain how. I've been trying to make this work for months with
no success.
The business requirement is that all files in a directory hierarchy be
created
mode 660 - read and write by owner and primary group. How do I do
this?
# zfs set aclmode=passthrough dataset
# mkdir dir.test
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Is there a time line for when we should expect the integration of the
user delegation functionality ? I'm desperately waiting for it and I
keep seeing new functionality that was approved after it integrating and
I'm wondering when it is coming.
Anything I can do to
Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Is there a time line for when we should expect the integration of the
user delegation functionality ? I'm desperately waiting for it and I
keep seeing new functionality that was approved after it integrating
Eric Hill wrote:
Here's a little test. I add an allow ACL to a new directory that should
propogate to sub-folders and files. When I create a new file, the file
inherits the ACL, but also gets a deny ACL in front of the allowed ACL. What's
going on here?
The deny is inserted to maintain
Mike Seda wrote:
The following is output from getfacl on a ufs filesytem:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] maseda]$ getfacl /home/users/ahege/incoming
# file: /home/users/ahege/incoming
# owner: ahege
# group: uncmd
user::rwx
user:nobody:rwx #effective:rwx
group::r-x #effective:r-x
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 10/24/06, *Mark Shellenbaum* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Gerhard wrote:
I want a file system that is shared by the group. Everything in
the file
system writable by the group no matter what the umask
Peter Tribble wrote:
On 10/27/06, *Mark Shellenbaum* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Tribble wrote:
Make everything be group writeable.
% chmod A+group@:rwxp:fd:allow a
You can't use the abstractions owner@,group@, or everyone@ you
Chris Gerhard wrote:
I'm trying to create a directory hierarchy that when ever a file is created it
is created mode 664 with directories 775.
Now I can do this with chmod to create the ACL on UFS and it behaves as
expected howerver on ZFS it does not.
So what exactly are you trying to
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
