Why are files in my home dir being created as world-writable despite a more-restrictive umask?
I've realized that the permissions for new files and directories behave a bit strangely. First of all, umask seems to return the right answer:
$ umask
0002
This means full access for my user and my group, no write access for the rest of the world, no suid. But if I create a file in my $HOME, this is how it looks:
$ ls -l testfile
-rw-rw-rw- 1 robe robe 0 mar 16 12:58 testfile
i.e. , giving write access to everyone. The same happens with directories:
$ ls -ld testdir
drwxrwxrwx 2 robe robe 6 mar 16 13:00 testdir
I think this is the same as having umask 0000, not 0002. I've searched all /etc for some instance of umask that changes the default 0002 or 0022, but found none. This is a default CentOS 5.5 install. Any hint of why is this happening?
centos umask
|
show 16 more comments
I've realized that the permissions for new files and directories behave a bit strangely. First of all, umask seems to return the right answer:
$ umask
0002
This means full access for my user and my group, no write access for the rest of the world, no suid. But if I create a file in my $HOME, this is how it looks:
$ ls -l testfile
-rw-rw-rw- 1 robe robe 0 mar 16 12:58 testfile
i.e. , giving write access to everyone. The same happens with directories:
$ ls -ld testdir
drwxrwxrwx 2 robe robe 6 mar 16 13:00 testdir
I think this is the same as having umask 0000, not 0002. I've searched all /etc for some instance of umask that changes the default 0002 or 0022, but found none. This is a default CentOS 5.5 install. Any hint of why is this happening?
centos umask
3
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
4
And how are you creatingtestfile
andtestdir
?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
3
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
2
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
3
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40
|
show 16 more comments
I've realized that the permissions for new files and directories behave a bit strangely. First of all, umask seems to return the right answer:
$ umask
0002
This means full access for my user and my group, no write access for the rest of the world, no suid. But if I create a file in my $HOME, this is how it looks:
$ ls -l testfile
-rw-rw-rw- 1 robe robe 0 mar 16 12:58 testfile
i.e. , giving write access to everyone. The same happens with directories:
$ ls -ld testdir
drwxrwxrwx 2 robe robe 6 mar 16 13:00 testdir
I think this is the same as having umask 0000, not 0002. I've searched all /etc for some instance of umask that changes the default 0002 or 0022, but found none. This is a default CentOS 5.5 install. Any hint of why is this happening?
centos umask
I've realized that the permissions for new files and directories behave a bit strangely. First of all, umask seems to return the right answer:
$ umask
0002
This means full access for my user and my group, no write access for the rest of the world, no suid. But if I create a file in my $HOME, this is how it looks:
$ ls -l testfile
-rw-rw-rw- 1 robe robe 0 mar 16 12:58 testfile
i.e. , giving write access to everyone. The same happens with directories:
$ ls -ld testdir
drwxrwxrwx 2 robe robe 6 mar 16 13:00 testdir
I think this is the same as having umask 0000, not 0002. I've searched all /etc for some instance of umask that changes the default 0002 or 0022, but found none. This is a default CentOS 5.5 install. Any hint of why is this happening?
centos umask
centos umask
edited May 20 '11 at 17:48
Tshepang
26k71185264
26k71185264
asked Mar 16 '11 at 12:07
rsuarezrsuarez
469418
469418
3
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
4
And how are you creatingtestfile
andtestdir
?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
3
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
2
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
3
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40
|
show 16 more comments
3
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
4
And how are you creatingtestfile
andtestdir
?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
3
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
2
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
3
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40
3
3
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
4
4
And how are you creating
testfile
and testdir
?– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
And how are you creating
testfile
and testdir
?– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
3
3
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
2
2
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
3
3
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40
|
show 16 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I don't know if it's proper to answer my own question. Editors, please, advise on this if this is not the case. Thanks in advance.
I think I've solved this mystery: the problem was the lack of a default ACL on the XFS volumes. Here's the ACL entry for /srv/backups, one of the directories affected:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
Whenever I did a "mkdir test" or "touch testfile", it would came up with permissions 777. So I did this:
setfacl -m d:u::rwx /srv/backups
Leaving the ACL like this:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other::r-x
Previously there (supposedly) was no ACL, but now there is. I can see the "+" sign attached to the permissions when I do a "ls -l". And magically, now "mkdir test" and "touch testfile" work with the expected permissions:
# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 20 10:00 testfile
# ls -ld testdir
drwxr-xr-x+ 2 root root 6 Dec 20 10:00 testdir
I don't know why this happens. I guess XFS doesn't like not having a default ACL, and behaves strangely when it happens. Also, I've seen this happen only in CentOS, not in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's related to the XFS version in the kernel, or something like that. No idea.
Anyway, that settles the case for me. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions :-)
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
add a comment |
The creat call can explictly specify permissions which take precedence over umask.
You haven't answered how you're creating testfile,testdir
.
Create the file using touch testfile
, then list and post the permissions
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
add a comment |
Try a getfacl .
in the directory you are creating your test file, to see if there is a default acl affecting the permissions.
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
add a comment |
Just look for the USERGROUPS_ENAB variable on /etc/login.defs
Them comment in order to disable it
# USERGROUPS_ENAB yes
If you also want to change your current user's umask, you should first fallow the previous procedure and them do the following.
example for 027
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc && pkill -KILL -u your_username_here
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc
this command will set an umask default value for your profile
this will forces you to log out
after login again
just run the umask comand again and see if it works for you
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9349%2fwhy-are-files-in-my-home-dir-being-created-as-world-writable-despite-a-more-rest%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I don't know if it's proper to answer my own question. Editors, please, advise on this if this is not the case. Thanks in advance.
I think I've solved this mystery: the problem was the lack of a default ACL on the XFS volumes. Here's the ACL entry for /srv/backups, one of the directories affected:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
Whenever I did a "mkdir test" or "touch testfile", it would came up with permissions 777. So I did this:
setfacl -m d:u::rwx /srv/backups
Leaving the ACL like this:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other::r-x
Previously there (supposedly) was no ACL, but now there is. I can see the "+" sign attached to the permissions when I do a "ls -l". And magically, now "mkdir test" and "touch testfile" work with the expected permissions:
# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 20 10:00 testfile
# ls -ld testdir
drwxr-xr-x+ 2 root root 6 Dec 20 10:00 testdir
I don't know why this happens. I guess XFS doesn't like not having a default ACL, and behaves strangely when it happens. Also, I've seen this happen only in CentOS, not in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's related to the XFS version in the kernel, or something like that. No idea.
Anyway, that settles the case for me. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions :-)
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
add a comment |
I don't know if it's proper to answer my own question. Editors, please, advise on this if this is not the case. Thanks in advance.
I think I've solved this mystery: the problem was the lack of a default ACL on the XFS volumes. Here's the ACL entry for /srv/backups, one of the directories affected:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
Whenever I did a "mkdir test" or "touch testfile", it would came up with permissions 777. So I did this:
setfacl -m d:u::rwx /srv/backups
Leaving the ACL like this:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other::r-x
Previously there (supposedly) was no ACL, but now there is. I can see the "+" sign attached to the permissions when I do a "ls -l". And magically, now "mkdir test" and "touch testfile" work with the expected permissions:
# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 20 10:00 testfile
# ls -ld testdir
drwxr-xr-x+ 2 root root 6 Dec 20 10:00 testdir
I don't know why this happens. I guess XFS doesn't like not having a default ACL, and behaves strangely when it happens. Also, I've seen this happen only in CentOS, not in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's related to the XFS version in the kernel, or something like that. No idea.
Anyway, that settles the case for me. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions :-)
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
add a comment |
I don't know if it's proper to answer my own question. Editors, please, advise on this if this is not the case. Thanks in advance.
I think I've solved this mystery: the problem was the lack of a default ACL on the XFS volumes. Here's the ACL entry for /srv/backups, one of the directories affected:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
Whenever I did a "mkdir test" or "touch testfile", it would came up with permissions 777. So I did this:
setfacl -m d:u::rwx /srv/backups
Leaving the ACL like this:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other::r-x
Previously there (supposedly) was no ACL, but now there is. I can see the "+" sign attached to the permissions when I do a "ls -l". And magically, now "mkdir test" and "touch testfile" work with the expected permissions:
# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 20 10:00 testfile
# ls -ld testdir
drwxr-xr-x+ 2 root root 6 Dec 20 10:00 testdir
I don't know why this happens. I guess XFS doesn't like not having a default ACL, and behaves strangely when it happens. Also, I've seen this happen only in CentOS, not in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's related to the XFS version in the kernel, or something like that. No idea.
Anyway, that settles the case for me. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions :-)
I don't know if it's proper to answer my own question. Editors, please, advise on this if this is not the case. Thanks in advance.
I think I've solved this mystery: the problem was the lack of a default ACL on the XFS volumes. Here's the ACL entry for /srv/backups, one of the directories affected:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
Whenever I did a "mkdir test" or "touch testfile", it would came up with permissions 777. So I did this:
setfacl -m d:u::rwx /srv/backups
Leaving the ACL like this:
# file: srv/backups
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:other::r-x
Previously there (supposedly) was no ACL, but now there is. I can see the "+" sign attached to the permissions when I do a "ls -l". And magically, now "mkdir test" and "touch testfile" work with the expected permissions:
# ls -l testfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Dec 20 10:00 testfile
# ls -ld testdir
drwxr-xr-x+ 2 root root 6 Dec 20 10:00 testdir
I don't know why this happens. I guess XFS doesn't like not having a default ACL, and behaves strangely when it happens. Also, I've seen this happen only in CentOS, not in Debian/Ubuntu. Maybe it's related to the XFS version in the kernel, or something like that. No idea.
Anyway, that settles the case for me. Thanks a lot for all the suggestions :-)
answered Dec 20 '11 at 9:03
rsuarezrsuarez
469418
469418
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
add a comment |
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
Answering your own question is perfectly acceptable.
– Keith Thompson
Dec 20 '11 at 10:30
add a comment |
The creat call can explictly specify permissions which take precedence over umask.
You haven't answered how you're creating testfile,testdir
.
Create the file using touch testfile
, then list and post the permissions
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
add a comment |
The creat call can explictly specify permissions which take precedence over umask.
You haven't answered how you're creating testfile,testdir
.
Create the file using touch testfile
, then list and post the permissions
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
add a comment |
The creat call can explictly specify permissions which take precedence over umask.
You haven't answered how you're creating testfile,testdir
.
Create the file using touch testfile
, then list and post the permissions
The creat call can explictly specify permissions which take precedence over umask.
You haven't answered how you're creating testfile,testdir
.
Create the file using touch testfile
, then list and post the permissions
answered Dec 9 '11 at 14:11
bsdbsd
7,89942132
7,89942132
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
add a comment |
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
Sorry for the delay. I did test using "touch testfile", and also "mkdir testdir", with similar results. umask seems to be set to "0000", because they are created with permissions 777.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:43
add a comment |
Try a getfacl .
in the directory you are creating your test file, to see if there is a default acl affecting the permissions.
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
add a comment |
Try a getfacl .
in the directory you are creating your test file, to see if there is a default acl affecting the permissions.
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
add a comment |
Try a getfacl .
in the directory you are creating your test file, to see if there is a default acl affecting the permissions.
Try a getfacl .
in the directory you are creating your test file, to see if there is a default acl affecting the permissions.
answered Dec 12 '11 at 11:34
AndrewAndrew
15614
15614
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
add a comment |
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
1
1
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
Nope, no default ACL. It seems to be related to XFS somehow, because it only happens in XFS volumes. But thanks anyway.
– rsuarez
Dec 20 '11 at 8:37
add a comment |
Just look for the USERGROUPS_ENAB variable on /etc/login.defs
Them comment in order to disable it
# USERGROUPS_ENAB yes
If you also want to change your current user's umask, you should first fallow the previous procedure and them do the following.
example for 027
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc && pkill -KILL -u your_username_here
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc
this command will set an umask default value for your profile
this will forces you to log out
after login again
just run the umask comand again and see if it works for you
New contributor
add a comment |
Just look for the USERGROUPS_ENAB variable on /etc/login.defs
Them comment in order to disable it
# USERGROUPS_ENAB yes
If you also want to change your current user's umask, you should first fallow the previous procedure and them do the following.
example for 027
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc && pkill -KILL -u your_username_here
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc
this command will set an umask default value for your profile
this will forces you to log out
after login again
just run the umask comand again and see if it works for you
New contributor
add a comment |
Just look for the USERGROUPS_ENAB variable on /etc/login.defs
Them comment in order to disable it
# USERGROUPS_ENAB yes
If you also want to change your current user's umask, you should first fallow the previous procedure and them do the following.
example for 027
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc && pkill -KILL -u your_username_here
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc
this command will set an umask default value for your profile
this will forces you to log out
after login again
just run the umask comand again and see if it works for you
New contributor
Just look for the USERGROUPS_ENAB variable on /etc/login.defs
Them comment in order to disable it
# USERGROUPS_ENAB yes
If you also want to change your current user's umask, you should first fallow the previous procedure and them do the following.
example for 027
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc && pkill -KILL -u your_username_here
echo "umask 027" >> ~/.bashrc
this command will set an umask default value for your profile
this will forces you to log out
after login again
just run the umask comand again and see if it works for you
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 mins ago
user336810user336810
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9349%2fwhy-are-files-in-my-home-dir-being-created-as-world-writable-despite-a-more-rest%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
What filesystem type is your home directory on?
– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:33
4
And how are you creating
testfile
andtestdir
?– mattdm
Mar 16 '11 at 12:34
3
@mattdm, you were right to insist: it's XFS. I forgot we have separate volumes for /home, /var and several more. Though I use XFS often and hadn't seen this behaviour. How can it be related?
– rsuarez
Mar 16 '11 at 14:13
2
acl can override umask locally. Is it possible your directories are being mounted with acl?
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:33
3
Hmm, apparently xfs always has acl enabled. so it might not show in your /etc/fstab. Try running getfacl on your partitions/directories.
– Faheem Mitha
Mar 17 '11 at 21:40