Sticky Bit Coming Unstuck
in [UK Mac]
|
From: R on 28 Apr 2010 11:11 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:03:24 +0100, me32(a)privacy.net (R) wrote: > > >Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > >> > bash: uname -v > >> > Darwin Kernel Version 10.3.0: Fri Feb 26 11:57:13 PST 2010; > >> > root:xnu-1504.3.12~1/RELEASE_X86_64 > >> > >> You're booting a 64-bit kernel? > > > >Yes, sir! > > I'm not, so that doesn't have bearing on the stickies. I think we'll have to blame Nick Clegg, then.
From: Bruce Horrocks on 28 Apr 2010 19:31 On 28/04/2010 11:16, David Empson wrote: >> > But! I'm wondering if it's the initial 'rm root_file' that's >> > incorrect, since krill*is* a member of the wheel group, as shown by >> > the ownerships on other_file. > Not that simple. For some reason, every file I create in /Users/Shared > (via touch) is in group wheel, no matter which user creates it (admin or > normal). None of my users are members of group wheel. That's normal: the open function (man 2 open) creates files with the group of the enclosing directory. In the spirit of desperation, try repeating the 'ls' commands from before but with the -n option to display users and groups as ids rather than names just in case, for some bizarre reason, your group names are corrupted. (Can't think how though and never seen it before.) -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: R on 29 Apr 2010 04:47 Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: > That's normal: the open function (man 2 open) creates files with the > group of the enclosing directory. I think maybe I should have just said "with the group" or something like that. I've been worrying a little bit about having used the term "group ownership". I'm not sure if a group can really own a file (and what would it mean to "own" it?). There's a debate raging inside my head :)
From: R on 29 Apr 2010 08:01 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Neither users nor groups (nor others!) own a file, they just have > dedicated access permissions to molest it: > > rwx rwx rwx > usr grp other > > Easy! I think I may be inclined to agree, even if the 'ls' man page mentions the file "owner": "If the -l option is given, the following information is displayed for each file: file mode, number of links, owner name, [...]"
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 29 Apr 2010 08:17
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:01:22 +0100, me32(a)privacy.net (R) wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >> Neither users nor groups (nor others!) own a file, they just have >> dedicated access permissions to molest it: >> >> rwx rwx rwx >> usr grp other >> >> Easy! > >I think I may be inclined to agree, even if the 'ls' man page >mentions the file "owner": > >"If the -l option is given, the following information is displayed > for each file: file mode, number of links, owner name, [...]" Pfft. Manpages. The label "owner" is used throughout ("chown" is an obvious case), but it doesn't mean anything more than "user currently allocated to use the first three permissions". Once the "owner" is changed, that's it - no history, nothing. Cheers - Jaimie -- "Machines take me by surprise with great frequency." - Alan Turing |