On 2012-06-05 12:44:39, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:31:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > >>   setfacl -m m:rwx .
> > >>   perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "a", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)'
> > >>   umask 077
> > >>   perl -MFcntl -e 'sysopen(X, "b", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0444)'
> > >>   getfacl a b
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Reading the withdrawn posix 1003.1e and "man 5 acl", it seems pretty
> > > clear that if a default ACL is present, it should be used, and umask
> > > consulted only if it is not (so the umask should not be making a
> > > difference in this case).
> > >
> > > The reproduction recipe above shows the minimum required to trigger it;
> > > adding a more realistic default ACL (with actual entries for users) does
> > > not seem to make a difference.
> > 
> > Thanks; so combining the above with your earlier patch to 1304 we
> > would have a good detection for SETFACL prerequisite?
> 
> Yes, I think we can detect it reliably. I'd like to hear back from
> ecryptfs folks before making a final patch, though. It may be that there
> is some subtle reason for their behavior, and I want to make sure before
> we write it off as just buggy.

It is likely a bug in the eCryptfs filesystem stacking code.

However, using the above script, I get the same results on eCryptfs as I
do on ext4 in the Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise) LTS:

# file: a
# owner: tyhicks
# group: tyhicks
user::r--
group::r--
other::r--

# file: b
# owner: tyhicks
# group: tyhicks
user::r--
group::---
other::---

Stefan - can you specify which LTS release you're running as well as the
output of `cat /proc/version_signature`? Thanks!

Tyler