.SH SYNOPSIS
-\fBapply-default-acl\fR [\fB-rx\fR] \fIpath\fR [\fIpath2 ...\fR]
+\fBapply-default-acl\fR [\fB-r\fR] \fIpath\fR [\fIpath2 ...\fR]
.SH DESCRIPTION
links are followed; symbolic links are ignored in all path components
to avoid a dangerous race condition.
.P
-By default, a heuristic is used to determine whether or not the
-execute bit is masked on \fIpath\fR. If \fIpath\fR is not a directory,
-and no user or group has \fBeffective\fR execute permissions on
-\fIpath\fR, then the execute bit will not masked. Otherwise, it is
-left alone. In effect we pretend that the \fBx\fR permission acts like
+A heuristic is used to determine whether or not the execute bits are
+removed from \fIpath\fR. If \fIpath\fR is a directory or if some user
+or group has \fBeffective\fR execute permissions on \fIpath\fR, then
+the execute bits will be left alone. Otherwise, they will be
+removed. In effect we pretend that the \fBx\fR permission acts like
the \fBX\fR (note the case difference) permission of \fBsetfacl\fR.
-.P
-This behavior can be modified with the \fB--no-exec-mask\fR flag.
.SH OPTIONS
.IP \fB\-\-recursive\fR,\ \fB\-r\fR
\fBfoo\fR is in another directory \fBbar\fR which has a default ACL,
then \fBbar\fR's default ACL will be applied to \fBfoo\fR before the
contents of \fBfoo\fR are processed.
-.IP \fB\-\-no-exec-mask\fR,\ \fB\-x\fR
-Apply the default ACL literally; that is, don't use a heuristic to
-decide whether or not to mask the execute bit. This usually results in
-looser-than-necessary execute permissions.
+
+.SH ALGORITHM
+.IP "I. Argument validation" 0.4i
+.RS
+.IP "a. If any part of the target path contains a symlink" 0.4i
+Return failure
+.IP "b. If there is no default ACL to apply"
+Return success
+.IP "c. If the target is not a (non-hardlink) regular file or directory"
+Return failure
+.RE
+.IP "II. ACL application"
+.RS
+.IP "a. If the target is a directory" 0.4i
+Set the target's default ACL equal to its parent's default ACL
+.IP "b. Set the target's access ACL equal to its parent's default ACL"
+.IP "c. If the target is a directory"
+Return success
+.IP "d. If the target was executable by anyone"
+Return success
+.IP "e. Unset the user/group/other/mask execute bits"
+.IP "f. Return success"
+.RE
+.P
+The action of apply-default ACL largely mimics what the kernel would
+do if you ran \fImkdir\fR or \fItouch\fR to create a new file. The one
+point of disagreement is on how to mask group-execute permissions for
+files. The kernel will let the \(dqmask\(dq bits prevent group-execute,
+whereas apply-default-acl will explicitly remove the group-execute bits.
+For example,
+
+.nf
+.I $ mkdir herp
+.I $ setfacl --default --modify user:mjo:rw herp
+.I $ touch herp/derp
+.I $ getfacl --omit-header herp/derp
+user::rw-
+user:mjo:rw-
+group::r-x #effective:r--
+mask::rw-
+other::r--
+.fi
+
+In the same situation, apply-default-acl will mask the group \fBx\fR bit:
+
+.nf
+.I $ apply-default-acl herp/derp
+.I $ getfacl --omit-header herp/derp
+user::rw-
+user:mjo:rw-
+group::r--
+mask::rw-
+other::r--
+.fi
+
+The author is of the opinion that the latter is more sensible, if not
+simply more consistent.
.SH EXIT CODE
.P
failure. If one succeeds, one fails, and one causes an error, then the
overall result will be an error; and so on.
.P
-The \fB\-\-recursive\fR flag modifies this behavior. Due to an
-implementation detail, the recursive operation will return
-EXIT_SUCCESS even if it encounters links or inaccessible paths during
-the traversal. Beware; this means that manually supplying all children
-of a directory on the command-line does not act the same as operating
-on that directory recursively.
+When the \fB\-\-recursive\fR flag is used, the exit code is computed
+as if all affected paths were passed, depth-first, on the command-line.
projects / apply-default-acl.git / blobdiff