Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: files recovery after rm?
Message-ID: <15846@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 13 Nov 89 06:18:59 GMT
References: <16608@uhnix1.uh.edu> <20530@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1989Nov9.162314.4713@virtech.uucp> <20551@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <1989Nov10.012648.8942@rpi.edu> <20559@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <15844@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 27


(Sigh.  Insert obligatory flame about people who get worked up enough
to post a flame-like correction, and get the facts wrong in their
correction.)

ken@cs.rochester.edu has been kind enough to point out to me in E-mail
that my attempt to spell out how umask works fell somewhat short of my
intuitive understanding of it.  That is, I can set a umask to do what
I want with no problem, but I left out a step when I tried to describe
what it does :-).

The umask does not represent the access rights that are *allowed*, it
represents the access rights that are *removed* be default.
Therefore, the request access modes are compared in a bitwise AND with
the one's complement of the umask, not with the umask itself.

A 077 umask would therefore always result in files with permissions of
rwx------ or rw-------.

The general gist of my correction still applies.  This just proves
that *I* should be a bit more careful about what I post, especially
when I am correcting someone else....

Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8495			      Home: 617-782-0710