similar to: Would you expect --perms -M--fake-super to set the file mode to the original one?

Thank you for the feedback, I'm glad to see that different people see the issue differently. As a followup question, what would you expect this to do: rsync --perms --chmod g+rX -M--fake-super src dst I would expect it to store the original permissions in the xattr, while modifying the real file mode according to the chmod. On Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:06:34 PM CET, Kevin Korb via rsync

Thanks. This is a bit counter-intuitive to me. So how would you tell rsync to store the original permissions in the xattr, but do not touch the real file mode? On Thursday, March 12, 2020 6:26:18 PM CET, Kevin Korb via rsync wrote: > I would expect that the sending rsync would only send the perms provided > modified by the --chmod. I wouldn't expect the receiver to even know > the

Permissions don't require super. Any place where permissions can't be stored certainly can't handle xattrs either. So, I wouldn't expect --fake-super to affect --perms at all. On 3/12/20 12:46 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote: > rsync --perms -M--fake-super src dst > > For me, this command means that rsync should save the original perms in the > xattr, and

I would expect that the sending rsync would only send the perms provided modified by the --chmod. I wouldn't expect the receiver to even know the other permissions. On 3/12/20 1:23 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote: > Thank you for the feedback, I'm glad to see that different people see > the issue > differently. As a followup question, what would you expect this to do:

I don't believe it is possible. I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that the permissions are even stored in the xattr. They don't need to be there but they may as well be. They don't take much space. The real question would be when rsync reads the file to restore it and the file perms are different than the ones in the xattr which set does it use? On 3/16/20 10:01 AM,

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7112 Summary: --fake-super should use default permissions for real files Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org

Hello list! Combining -M--fake-super with --chmod ends up changing the permissions stored in the fake-super xattrs. I.e. the permissions stored in the xattr, are affected by --chmod. The desirable behaviour for me would be for --chmod to modify the real permissions of the destination files. The use case is writing a backup as a non-root user, having it readable by the group (g+rX), while also

On 2020-03-17 00:03:03 [+0100], Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote: > On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > via rsync wrote: > > > > I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash _or_ if a > > strong hash like xxHash64 would be just fine for the job. > > I'm fairly sure the hash should *not* be easy to

On 2020-02-20 20:06:39 [+0100], Markus Ueberall wrote: > On 2020-02-09 23:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > [...] > > My primar motivation to use SHA1 for checksumming (by default) instead > > of MD5 is not the additional security bits but performance. On a decent > > x86 box the SHA1 performance is almost the same as MD5's but with > > acceleration it

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7070 Summary: Permission denied message with --fake-super and permissionless directory Product: rsync Version: 3.0.6 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at

Using --existing, I would like to transfer files created by root to home dirs, where the files would be updated, but leave the user,group and perms as they were. ie root creates a new file on the sending system, rsyncs it to the home dir of the user, leaving the perms untouched. Seems there is no option for this - the users are not defined on the sending system. I cant do it backwards due to

When I try it the chmod works on both the real permissions and the permissions in the xatttr. Maybe the behavior has changed since whatever version you have (3.1.3 here) but this probably wouldn't help you either. On 12/8/19 7:56 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote: > Hello list! > > Combining -M--fake-super with --chmod ends up changing the permissions > stored in the

Hello, As i cannot get 3.0.0pre5 to work in my environment (throwing crazy errors which i've posted previously), i would like to revert to 2.6.9 . Of course, the reason i tried to use v3 in the first place was for the acl, xattr, and fake-super options - which, evidently, can be enabled under 2.6.9, as per the following sources: http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2007-February/017218.html

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12820 Bug ID: 12820 Summary: rsync always try change owner and group of symlink in --fake-super mode Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9594 Summary: Error transferring user and non-user xattr using --fake-super under Linux Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at

Why does --xattrs imply --perms (according to the man page)? Unlike --acls, --xattrs is not logically a superset of --perms (since system.* xattrs are ignored). I might conceivably want to copy some user xattrs that I set on my files while allowing the destination permissions to take the default value. Matt

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7110 Summary: Symlink fake-super data is silently lost when sys_lsetxattr fails with EPERM Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5298 Summary: xattrs and acls do not work well together along with fake-super, even worse on XFS Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo:

Hi all I noticed a pretty strange behaviour regarding file permissions that sometimes change without any reason. I need to share the following two directories: /home/public (owner=root, group=root, perms=0777) /home/users (owner=root, group=users, perms=0770) the /home directory is owned by root, the group is root and permissions are set in this way: 0755. The above dirs are shared

Hi all! I have a corpus of virtual users ( user1 at domain.tld , user2 at domain.tld, user3 at domain.tld,..., usern at domain.tld ... ) authenticated against Active Directory. Is it possible to group some users (virtual) and give appropriate ACLs on a shared imap public folder using an ACL vfile? thanks in advance Dimitrios