Permission inheritance problem

[kavya]

so if i set a sticky bit it applies for owner also????

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> wrote:

> On 18Nov2011 11:07, kavya <kavya.g4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> |           Am working with file permission I have a query,
> |
> | usually on /mnt normal users will not be having permission to write so I
> | gave permission such as
> | #chmod 766 /mnt
>
> Surely you want 777 here? A directory with no 'x' permission is not
> searchable; 'r' only lets someone see the names of the things in the
> directory, 'x' (search) lets them access it. So with a directory you
> almost always want to grant 'x' if you grant any access. You don't need
> to give 'r', but it is usual. So 'r-x' and '--x' are sensible, 'r--' is
> usually not sensible.
>
> | #chmod go+t /mnt
>
> You just want "+t" here. There is no such thing as "sticky bit for
> group" or "sticky bit for other". There is only one bit.
>
> | I have enabled a sticky bit on /mnt  for group and
> | others, as sticky bit is set, even the files and folders under /mnt can
> not
> | be deleted by others even if they have complete permissions and no sticky
> | bit is set for files under /mnt,
>
> Yes.
>
> | is there any option to allow users to
> | delete only particular files ?????
>
> No. The permissions on /mnt apply to the directory as a whole,
> not on a per-name basis.
>
> If you want per-name control the best you can do is make subdirectories
> and grant different accesses to those. Which is what home directories
> effectively are, if you would like a similar arrangement.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
> http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
>
> My opinions are borrowed from someone who no longer needs them.
>        -- KatmanDu at uga.cc.uga.edu
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>



-- 

Thanks and Regards

         Kavya.N(Koramangala)