is setfacl broken? or is it Linux acl support in general?

[Barry Brimer]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Furnish, Trever G wrote:

> Can someone help me understand where I'm going wrong with setfacl?
>
> I want every new file created in a directory to have an effective acl of rwx for user "bob".
>
> I do this:
> setfacl -m d:u:bob:rwx,u:bob:rwx directory
>
> Then I touch a new file into that directory:
> touch directory/newfile
>
> Unfortunately, newfile comes in with some seemingly random acl -- sometimes it's r--, sometimes it's rw-, but it's never rwx.
>
> What gives?
>
> I've tried explicitly setting the default and non-default masks too -- that doesn't seem to help (but here's the command I mean):
> setfacl -m d:m::rwx,m::rwx,d:u:bob:rwx,u:bob:rwx .

I've used Linux ACLs for a while .. and I've always issued commands 
individually.  I don't know that this will make a difference for you, but 
in case it does, it is worth a shot.  Try clearing out your ACLs and do 
them one at a time.  Also .. I've used (for a default ACL) setfacl -d -m 
u:<user>:<perm> .. your format looks a little different.  Both could be 
right .. I've just never tried it your way.  Also .. keep in mind that the 
existing file mask counts.

Barry