Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!umd5.umd.edu!roissy.umd.edu!mark From: mark@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs Subject: Re: bug with ufs file creation Date: 8 Sep 1993 17:52:34 GMT Organization: University of Maryland Lines: 28 Message-ID: <26l652$mp5@umd5.umd.edu> References: <CCzu78.DJD@kithrup.com> <328@rook.ukc.ac.uk> <CD0AnI.1rM@taronga.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: roissy.umd.edu In article <CD0AnI.1rM@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >That doesn't make sense. I can see using the directory group to choose >which of *your* groups the file should be in, but what's the point of >creating a file in a group you're not a member of by default? You might claim that it should be if user is in the group the directory belongs to created files inherit the group on the director else created files belong to the users primary group I've used machines that do this. It seems reasonable. >I suppose this is all part of the broken BSD chown semantics, inherited >from the days of the Berkeley Fascist File System (not a dig... that's >what it was called) with only group masters able to chown files owned by >members of a group. Ordinary users can't *chown* files. They can *chgrp* their own files to other groups that they are members of. >I think that this whole area: groups, chown, quotas, and so on needs to >be reconsidered. It's become a big mess. In what way is it a mess?