A common way to set up a directory for file sharing within a group, is:
$ mkdir foo
$ chgrp felles foo
$ chmod g+ws foo
$ setfacl -m group:felles:rwx foo
$ setfacl -dm group:felles:rwx foo
This ensures that any files created in foo
is readable and writable by the group felles
:
$ umask
0022
$ echo hi > foo/bar
$ ls -l foo
total 4
-rw-rw-r--+ 1 bhm felles 3 2010-09-23 00:18 bar
However, if you copy a file into foo
, the default ACLs are not applied:
$ echo you > baz
$ cp baz foo/
$ ls -l foo
total 8
-rw-rw-r--+ 1 bhm felles 3 2010-09-23 00:18 bar
-rw-r--r--+ 1 bhm felles 4 2010-09-23 00:19 baz
$ getfacl foo/baz
# file: foo/baz
# owner: bhm
# group: felles
user::rw-
group::rwx #effective:r--
group:felles:rwx #effective:r--
mask::r--
other::r--
Why does this happen, and is there a way around it?
(Moving a file into the directory does not respect either ACLs or group ownership, but I can understand why: you might not want the permissions of a file to change simply because you change its name.)
If
cp
creates the destination file, it replicates the permissions of the source file, except for the bits that are set in the umask. This is standard behavior (see e.g. step 3.b in the Single Unix v3 (POSIX 2001) specification.Why was cp designed this way? Because there are many cases where this behavior is desirable, for example preserving a file's privacy when the original permissions are restrictive, and preserving executability is almost always the right thing to do. It is however unfortunate that not even GNU cp has an option to turn this behavior off.
Most copy tools (e.g. pax, rsync) behave in the same way. You can ensure the file will be created with the default permission by decoupling the source from the destination, for example with
cat <baz >foo/baz
.Well, a three-year old and more question but still relevant. For future readers, I want to add that it is expected that mv, cp commands do not follow destination directory's ACL. Gilles's answer is all fine but the last sentence. The better way to apply the destination's ACL to the copied/moved file is the way mentioned here:
http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/view/4281/copy-acl-of-one-file-to-another-using-getfacl-and-setfacl
In case the link is broken in future, I paste the content here:
copy ACL of one file to another using getfacl and setfacl
WARNING: Existing ACL will get lost.
You need to use
-p
or--preserve
withcp
.From
man 5 acl
:I had a similar problem with rsynced files lacking the proper default ACLs in the target subdirectory. Cp does not have a way of setting the permissions on the target. But, rsync does, using the
--chmod=ugo=rwx
flag. See my answer here.The ACLs are propagating correctly, but the default mask doesn't seem to be correct. You probably want your default mask to be rwX.
If that doesn't work, please post the ACL for foo.
From what I see you are the owner of the files (bhm) before and after the cp. As the directory listing shows the owner has read and write access!