On Lu, 26 mar 12, 15:15:02, Camaleón wrote: > > > > As you can see, the permissions of the mount point have no influence on > > the permissions of the files on the partition. This is true for about > > any filesystem that is more or less native to Linux (ext*, xfs, etc.). > > I'm not sure about your point here. > > What I wanted to say is that in order to make a mount point which is > defined in "/etc/fstab" being writeable by your users the mount point has > to have the proper permissions if not, depending on the path it is > located (e.g., my backup disk is mounted under "/data/backup" to avoid > loops when running the tar routine to make a copy of my "/home" > directory), it will be owned by "root" which is not usually what the user > wants. "mountpoint" can be ambiguous in this context, I probably just misunderstood you, so let me rephrase: When using filesystems that support Unix-style file permissions the permissions of the directory where the filesystem will be attached (a mountpoint in fstab(5) terminology) don't matter. What matters are the actual permissions of the root directory of the filesystem and any other file present on that filesystem. These permissions do *not* depend on mount options[1], and can be changed with chown/chmod. [1] I'm excluding the 'rw' and 'ro' mount options for the purpose of this discussion fat and ntfs (and probably others as well) are special. Since they don't support Unix-style permissions the owner and mode of *all* files on the filesystem can be set via mount options (uid,gid,fmask,dmask). Hope this explains, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature