chmod , umask, acl

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I think the answer is "That's just how it works," but I figured I'd ask in case I'm doing something wrong.



My account's default umask is 0077. I'm in the wheel group.



I have a directory with this ACL:



# file: .
# owner: root
# group: wheel
# flags: -s-
user::rwx
group::rwx
other::r-x
default:user::rwx
default:group::rwx
default:group:wheel:rwx
default:mask::rwx
default:other::r-x


I create a file, and the permissions are properly set according to the above ACL.



$ touch z
$ ls -al
drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
-rw-rw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


I now decide that this is an executable, so I change the permissions. This time, it does not follow the ACL, it follows the umask.



$ chmod +x z
$ ls -al
drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
-rwxrw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


I need to specify a+x to make this work.



$ chmod a+x z
$ ls -al
drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
-rwxrwxr-x+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


I guess I just don't understand why touch creates a file according to the ACL, but chmod adjusts the permissions ignoring the ACL.










share|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I think the answer is "That's just how it works," but I figured I'd ask in case I'm doing something wrong.



    My account's default umask is 0077. I'm in the wheel group.



    I have a directory with this ACL:



    # file: .
    # owner: root
    # group: wheel
    # flags: -s-
    user::rwx
    group::rwx
    other::r-x
    default:user::rwx
    default:group::rwx
    default:group:wheel:rwx
    default:mask::rwx
    default:other::r-x


    I create a file, and the permissions are properly set according to the above ACL.



    $ touch z
    $ ls -al
    drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
    drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
    -rw-rw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


    I now decide that this is an executable, so I change the permissions. This time, it does not follow the ACL, it follows the umask.



    $ chmod +x z
    $ ls -al
    drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
    drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
    -rwxrw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


    I need to specify a+x to make this work.



    $ chmod a+x z
    $ ls -al
    drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
    drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
    -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


    I guess I just don't understand why touch creates a file according to the ACL, but chmod adjusts the permissions ignoring the ACL.










    share|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I think the answer is "That's just how it works," but I figured I'd ask in case I'm doing something wrong.



      My account's default umask is 0077. I'm in the wheel group.



      I have a directory with this ACL:



      # file: .
      # owner: root
      # group: wheel
      # flags: -s-
      user::rwx
      group::rwx
      other::r-x
      default:user::rwx
      default:group::rwx
      default:group:wheel:rwx
      default:mask::rwx
      default:other::r-x


      I create a file, and the permissions are properly set according to the above ACL.



      $ touch z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rw-rw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I now decide that this is an executable, so I change the permissions. This time, it does not follow the ACL, it follows the umask.



      $ chmod +x z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rwxrw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I need to specify a+x to make this work.



      $ chmod a+x z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I guess I just don't understand why touch creates a file according to the ACL, but chmod adjusts the permissions ignoring the ACL.










      share|improve this question













      I think the answer is "That's just how it works," but I figured I'd ask in case I'm doing something wrong.



      My account's default umask is 0077. I'm in the wheel group.



      I have a directory with this ACL:



      # file: .
      # owner: root
      # group: wheel
      # flags: -s-
      user::rwx
      group::rwx
      other::r-x
      default:user::rwx
      default:group::rwx
      default:group:wheel:rwx
      default:mask::rwx
      default:other::r-x


      I create a file, and the permissions are properly set according to the above ACL.



      $ touch z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rw-rw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I now decide that this is an executable, so I change the permissions. This time, it does not follow the ACL, it follows the umask.



      $ chmod +x z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rwxrw-r--+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I need to specify a+x to make this work.



      $ chmod a+x z
      $ ls -al
      drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root wheel 4,096 Aug 7 12:36 .
      drwxr-xr-x. 7 root root 4,096 Aug 6 17:31 ..
      -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 ehymowitz wheel 0 Aug 7 12:36 z


      I guess I just don't understand why touch creates a file according to the ACL, but chmod adjusts the permissions ignoring the ACL.







      acl umask






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Aug 7 at 12:40









      hymie

      1,115514




      1,115514




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          You are witnessing one of the more subtleties of Unix/Linux permissions. The ACLs are being picked up when you invoke the touch command from the parent directory where the file is being created. The ACLs incorporate both the traditional permissions (modes) + the ACLs.



          When you're using chmod you're manipulating just the MODE bits of the files or directories you're acting on. Keep in mind that these are discretely different and so care has to be paid when manipulating them.



          Example



          If you use strace you can see how chmod works. To start let's create a file, file_077:



          $ rm afile_077*; umask 077; strace -s 2000 touch afile_077 > afile_077.tr 2>&1


          See the results:



          $ ll afile_077
          -rw------- 1 user1 user1 0 Aug 7 09:32 afile_077


          Change the permissions on the file to a+x:



          $ strace -s 2000 chmod a+x afile_077 > afile_077_chmod.tr 2>&1


          Look at the resulting log:



          $ cat afile_077_chmod.tr 
          ...
          umask(0) = 02
          stat("afile_077", 0600, st_size=0, ...) = 0
          fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, "afile_077", 0711) = 0
          ...


          Here we can see that chmod is interrogating the umask and then setting the MODE bits accordingly. It never looks to ACLs. NOTE: Keep in mind that this interrogation by chmod isn't that it's going to incorporate the output of umask in its operations.






          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Explicit feature of chmod.



            man chmod




            A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
            file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
            file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
            (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
            but bits that are set in the umask are not affected.





            If you want to check some related ideas about ACLs, there's an answer I've found informative. It lets you see the exact details of the system calls that are setting the file permissions. (Thanks slm!)



            How does umask affect ACLs?



            However it's not necessarily a good introduction to how these details can be used. *nix permissions are pretty weird once you start wanting to use default ACLs (or traditional set-GID). Currently there's a limitation that the umask you would want for the most consistent behaviour is not supported on multi-user workstation OS's that use systemd (and also udisks mounts FAT filesystems with the wrong permission bits).



            Default ACLs might be used on Unix fileservers for Windows workstations. I think in some cases this could involve using a hacky Samba configuration to effectively override the umask. Of course Linux can access Samba, and then you can benefit from this override hack^Wfeature. The same hack can be configured within Linux by using the FUSE filesystem "bindfs".



            (That said, Linux mv between folders on the same mounted filesystem never respects different default ACLs. nautilus (GNOME Files) doesn't implement default ACLs on move either. Windows Explorer does).






            share|improve this answer


















            • 1




              chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
              – schily
              Aug 7 at 15:30











            Your Answer







            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "106"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f461060%2fchmod-umask-acl%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            You are witnessing one of the more subtleties of Unix/Linux permissions. The ACLs are being picked up when you invoke the touch command from the parent directory where the file is being created. The ACLs incorporate both the traditional permissions (modes) + the ACLs.



            When you're using chmod you're manipulating just the MODE bits of the files or directories you're acting on. Keep in mind that these are discretely different and so care has to be paid when manipulating them.



            Example



            If you use strace you can see how chmod works. To start let's create a file, file_077:



            $ rm afile_077*; umask 077; strace -s 2000 touch afile_077 > afile_077.tr 2>&1


            See the results:



            $ ll afile_077
            -rw------- 1 user1 user1 0 Aug 7 09:32 afile_077


            Change the permissions on the file to a+x:



            $ strace -s 2000 chmod a+x afile_077 > afile_077_chmod.tr 2>&1


            Look at the resulting log:



            $ cat afile_077_chmod.tr 
            ...
            umask(0) = 02
            stat("afile_077", 0600, st_size=0, ...) = 0
            fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, "afile_077", 0711) = 0
            ...


            Here we can see that chmod is interrogating the umask and then setting the MODE bits accordingly. It never looks to ACLs. NOTE: Keep in mind that this interrogation by chmod isn't that it's going to incorporate the output of umask in its operations.






            share|improve this answer


























              up vote
              1
              down vote



              accepted










              You are witnessing one of the more subtleties of Unix/Linux permissions. The ACLs are being picked up when you invoke the touch command from the parent directory where the file is being created. The ACLs incorporate both the traditional permissions (modes) + the ACLs.



              When you're using chmod you're manipulating just the MODE bits of the files or directories you're acting on. Keep in mind that these are discretely different and so care has to be paid when manipulating them.



              Example



              If you use strace you can see how chmod works. To start let's create a file, file_077:



              $ rm afile_077*; umask 077; strace -s 2000 touch afile_077 > afile_077.tr 2>&1


              See the results:



              $ ll afile_077
              -rw------- 1 user1 user1 0 Aug 7 09:32 afile_077


              Change the permissions on the file to a+x:



              $ strace -s 2000 chmod a+x afile_077 > afile_077_chmod.tr 2>&1


              Look at the resulting log:



              $ cat afile_077_chmod.tr 
              ...
              umask(0) = 02
              stat("afile_077", 0600, st_size=0, ...) = 0
              fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, "afile_077", 0711) = 0
              ...


              Here we can see that chmod is interrogating the umask and then setting the MODE bits accordingly. It never looks to ACLs. NOTE: Keep in mind that this interrogation by chmod isn't that it's going to incorporate the output of umask in its operations.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted






                You are witnessing one of the more subtleties of Unix/Linux permissions. The ACLs are being picked up when you invoke the touch command from the parent directory where the file is being created. The ACLs incorporate both the traditional permissions (modes) + the ACLs.



                When you're using chmod you're manipulating just the MODE bits of the files or directories you're acting on. Keep in mind that these are discretely different and so care has to be paid when manipulating them.



                Example



                If you use strace you can see how chmod works. To start let's create a file, file_077:



                $ rm afile_077*; umask 077; strace -s 2000 touch afile_077 > afile_077.tr 2>&1


                See the results:



                $ ll afile_077
                -rw------- 1 user1 user1 0 Aug 7 09:32 afile_077


                Change the permissions on the file to a+x:



                $ strace -s 2000 chmod a+x afile_077 > afile_077_chmod.tr 2>&1


                Look at the resulting log:



                $ cat afile_077_chmod.tr 
                ...
                umask(0) = 02
                stat("afile_077", 0600, st_size=0, ...) = 0
                fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, "afile_077", 0711) = 0
                ...


                Here we can see that chmod is interrogating the umask and then setting the MODE bits accordingly. It never looks to ACLs. NOTE: Keep in mind that this interrogation by chmod isn't that it's going to incorporate the output of umask in its operations.






                share|improve this answer














                You are witnessing one of the more subtleties of Unix/Linux permissions. The ACLs are being picked up when you invoke the touch command from the parent directory where the file is being created. The ACLs incorporate both the traditional permissions (modes) + the ACLs.



                When you're using chmod you're manipulating just the MODE bits of the files or directories you're acting on. Keep in mind that these are discretely different and so care has to be paid when manipulating them.



                Example



                If you use strace you can see how chmod works. To start let's create a file, file_077:



                $ rm afile_077*; umask 077; strace -s 2000 touch afile_077 > afile_077.tr 2>&1


                See the results:



                $ ll afile_077
                -rw------- 1 user1 user1 0 Aug 7 09:32 afile_077


                Change the permissions on the file to a+x:



                $ strace -s 2000 chmod a+x afile_077 > afile_077_chmod.tr 2>&1


                Look at the resulting log:



                $ cat afile_077_chmod.tr 
                ...
                umask(0) = 02
                stat("afile_077", 0600, st_size=0, ...) = 0
                fchmodat(AT_FDCWD, "afile_077", 0711) = 0
                ...


                Here we can see that chmod is interrogating the umask and then setting the MODE bits accordingly. It never looks to ACLs. NOTE: Keep in mind that this interrogation by chmod isn't that it's going to incorporate the output of umask in its operations.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Aug 7 at 15:06

























                answered Aug 7 at 13:13









                slm♦

                238k65491662




                238k65491662






















                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote













                    Explicit feature of chmod.



                    man chmod




                    A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
                    file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
                    file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
                    (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
                    but bits that are set in the umask are not affected.





                    If you want to check some related ideas about ACLs, there's an answer I've found informative. It lets you see the exact details of the system calls that are setting the file permissions. (Thanks slm!)



                    How does umask affect ACLs?



                    However it's not necessarily a good introduction to how these details can be used. *nix permissions are pretty weird once you start wanting to use default ACLs (or traditional set-GID). Currently there's a limitation that the umask you would want for the most consistent behaviour is not supported on multi-user workstation OS's that use systemd (and also udisks mounts FAT filesystems with the wrong permission bits).



                    Default ACLs might be used on Unix fileservers for Windows workstations. I think in some cases this could involve using a hacky Samba configuration to effectively override the umask. Of course Linux can access Samba, and then you can benefit from this override hack^Wfeature. The same hack can be configured within Linux by using the FUSE filesystem "bindfs".



                    (That said, Linux mv between folders on the same mounted filesystem never respects different default ACLs. nautilus (GNOME Files) doesn't implement default ACLs on move either. Windows Explorer does).






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 1




                      chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                      – schily
                      Aug 7 at 15:30















                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote













                    Explicit feature of chmod.



                    man chmod




                    A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
                    file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
                    file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
                    (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
                    but bits that are set in the umask are not affected.





                    If you want to check some related ideas about ACLs, there's an answer I've found informative. It lets you see the exact details of the system calls that are setting the file permissions. (Thanks slm!)



                    How does umask affect ACLs?



                    However it's not necessarily a good introduction to how these details can be used. *nix permissions are pretty weird once you start wanting to use default ACLs (or traditional set-GID). Currently there's a limitation that the umask you would want for the most consistent behaviour is not supported on multi-user workstation OS's that use systemd (and also udisks mounts FAT filesystems with the wrong permission bits).



                    Default ACLs might be used on Unix fileservers for Windows workstations. I think in some cases this could involve using a hacky Samba configuration to effectively override the umask. Of course Linux can access Samba, and then you can benefit from this override hack^Wfeature. The same hack can be configured within Linux by using the FUSE filesystem "bindfs".



                    (That said, Linux mv between folders on the same mounted filesystem never respects different default ACLs. nautilus (GNOME Files) doesn't implement default ACLs on move either. Windows Explorer does).






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 1




                      chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                      – schily
                      Aug 7 at 15:30













                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    2
                    down vote









                    Explicit feature of chmod.



                    man chmod




                    A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
                    file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
                    file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
                    (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
                    but bits that are set in the umask are not affected.





                    If you want to check some related ideas about ACLs, there's an answer I've found informative. It lets you see the exact details of the system calls that are setting the file permissions. (Thanks slm!)



                    How does umask affect ACLs?



                    However it's not necessarily a good introduction to how these details can be used. *nix permissions are pretty weird once you start wanting to use default ACLs (or traditional set-GID). Currently there's a limitation that the umask you would want for the most consistent behaviour is not supported on multi-user workstation OS's that use systemd (and also udisks mounts FAT filesystems with the wrong permission bits).



                    Default ACLs might be used on Unix fileservers for Windows workstations. I think in some cases this could involve using a hacky Samba configuration to effectively override the umask. Of course Linux can access Samba, and then you can benefit from this override hack^Wfeature. The same hack can be configured within Linux by using the FUSE filesystem "bindfs".



                    (That said, Linux mv between folders on the same mounted filesystem never respects different default ACLs. nautilus (GNOME Files) doesn't implement default ACLs on move either. Windows Explorer does).






                    share|improve this answer














                    Explicit feature of chmod.



                    man chmod




                    A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
                    file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
                    file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
                    (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
                    but bits that are set in the umask are not affected.





                    If you want to check some related ideas about ACLs, there's an answer I've found informative. It lets you see the exact details of the system calls that are setting the file permissions. (Thanks slm!)



                    How does umask affect ACLs?



                    However it's not necessarily a good introduction to how these details can be used. *nix permissions are pretty weird once you start wanting to use default ACLs (or traditional set-GID). Currently there's a limitation that the umask you would want for the most consistent behaviour is not supported on multi-user workstation OS's that use systemd (and also udisks mounts FAT filesystems with the wrong permission bits).



                    Default ACLs might be used on Unix fileservers for Windows workstations. I think in some cases this could involve using a hacky Samba configuration to effectively override the umask. Of course Linux can access Samba, and then you can benefit from this override hack^Wfeature. The same hack can be configured within Linux by using the FUSE filesystem "bindfs".



                    (That said, Linux mv between folders on the same mounted filesystem never respects different default ACLs. nautilus (GNOME Files) doesn't implement default ACLs on move either. Windows Explorer does).







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Aug 7 at 14:29

























                    answered Aug 7 at 12:53









                    sourcejedi

                    19.9k42683




                    19.9k42683







                    • 1




                      chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                      – schily
                      Aug 7 at 15:30













                    • 1




                      chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                      – schily
                      Aug 7 at 15:30








                    1




                    1




                    chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                    – schily
                    Aug 7 at 15:30





                    chmod is ACL agnostic, but note that "Windows" uses the modern ACEs not the withdrawn ACLs and as a result, Linux and Samba do not play well together since both systems are not 100% compatible. If you like uniform "ACL" handling in UNIX and Windows, you need a ZFS based fileserver that fully supports NFSv4.
                    – schily
                    Aug 7 at 15:30


















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f461060%2fchmod-umask-acl%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Bahrain

                    Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay