[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: umask is different in 8.0



Perhaps a dumb question but...

In this example, shouldn't the permissions of 'foo' be rwxrwxrwx with a umask of 000 unless foo was a pre-existing file? Your permissions are what I would expect with a umask of 111, but it works the same here (as your example).


Jesse Keating wrote:


On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:02:30 -0500
"Eric Wood" <eric interplas com> wrote:



But when a new child process spawns (say a shell script), the umask is
not inherited. Is there a fix for that?



I can't duplicate that either. [jkeating yoda temp]$ umask 000
[jkeating yoda temp]$ ./script
0000
Touching foo


total 20
drwxrwxr-x    3 jkeating jkeating     4096 Dec 19 12:11 .
drwx------   97 jkeating jkeating     8192 Dec 19 12:10 ..
-rw-rw-rw-    1 jkeating jkeating        0 Dec 19 12:11 foo


[jkeating yoda temp]$ cat script #!/bin/sh

echo `umask`
echo "Touching foo"
touch foo
echo
ls -al

exit 0






---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]