Re: NTFS umask option problem

David Wragg (dpw@doc.ic.ac.uk)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:51:04 GMT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: Fix for strange name module loading requests"
Previous message: Ondrej Filip: "2.0.33 Hang up"
In reply to: Ondrej Filip: "2.0.33 Hang up"

Martin v. Loewis writes:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Sorry, but I fail to see the problem. From mount(8)
>
> Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that
> are not present). The default is the umask of the
> current process. The value is given in octal.
>
> The umask of the current process is not considered, but I believe it
> is not for any other file system supporting the umask mount option.
>

Whoops. I should not rant on linux-kernel when I am too tired to think
straight.

So why does ntfs default to a umask of 0077 whereas (for example) vfat
defaults to the umask of the mounting process? Which is doing the
right thing?

--
Dave Wragg

Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: Fix for strange name module loading requests"
Previous message: Ondrej Filip: "2.0.33 Hang up"
In reply to: Ondrej Filip: "2.0.33 Hang up"