Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!gondor.psu.edu!flee
From: flee@gondor.psu.edu (Felix Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: umask and multiple groups
Message-ID: <3062@psuvax1.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 6-Nov-87 23:04:28 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.3062
Posted: Fri Nov  6 23:04:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 23:28:39 EST
References: <21241@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
Sender: netnews@psuvax1.psu.edu
Reply-To: flee@gondor.psu.edu (Felix Lee)
Organization: The Roadside Picnic
Lines: 24

In article <21241@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> edler@cmcl2.UUCP (Jan Edler) writes:
>In 4.[23]bsd, when you create a file, the gid of the file is taken from
>the gid of the directory you create it in (even if you aren't a member
>of that group).  It seems to me that the single umask(2) mechanism is
>crippled in this environment.

I think one obvious answer is to have a file inherit the protections of the
directory it's created in (file_mode & ~umask & dir_mode); inheritance of
protection, like inheritance of group.  Minimal disruption--no extra
structures to worry about.

>Were multiple groups a bad idea?

I don't know.  I'd rather not have to type 'newgrp'.  But looking at the
groups I'm in now, only two of them are exercised regularly.  Most get
occasional use, when I'm working in a specific domain.  A few, like
printer permission groups, are never used.  I can't imagine ever needing
all 24 groups that our installation allows.  However, it would be a pain
to switch back and forth between the two groups I do use regularly.

I think I'd be happy with a small group vector, and a 'newgrp' command
to switch in groups as I need them.  But this is just added complexity.
--
Felix Lee	flee@gondor.psu.edu	{cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!gondor!flee