From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 19 10:59:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE76716A420 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:59:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEB743D45 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:58:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k1JAwrtT022671; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:58:53 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id k1JAwqBL022670; Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:58:53 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:58:52 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Dmitry Morozovsky Message-ID: <20060219105852.GC20500@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <20060216161726.M91053@woozle.rinet.ru> <20060216074912.K18952@extra.rwsystems.net> <20060216165612.M91053@woozle.rinet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060216165612.M91053@woozle.rinet.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, James Wyatt Subject: Re: RELENG_6 weird '..' permission troubles X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:59:04 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 04:57:57PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, James Wyatt wrote: > > JW> I've seen something very similar when the permissions of the mount point's > JW> underlieing subdirectory wasn't 777. Really strange to see, but it was a > JW> fallout from a company-wide change to make umask and directory permissions > JW> that wasn't quite implemented correctly. Hope this helps - Jy@ > > Exactly, see my other followup. > > I suppose 0777 is bad choice because if for some reason file system would not > mount, anyone can fill up this directory. 0111 or 0555 or standard 0755 would > be safe though. This looks like a file-a-PR case if you are sure you didn't overlook anything. To the best of my knowledge, the underlying mount point permissions should affect nothing since the FS was mounted. But you didn't show us output from "ls -la /" so please judge by yourself. -- Yar