Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 20 April,2001
1003.2-92 #67 _____________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation Number: XXXX Topic: mkdir -m mode Relevant Sections: 4.41 Interpretation Request: (Defect Report) ----------------------- This problem was encountered while using the POSIX.2 Commands test suite. Should mkdir -m mode utilize the current umask in setting permissions? I would propose that it does not. The test assertion in 2003.2 Draft 9 say it should based on the DESCRIPTION for mkdir which says it "shall perform actions equivalent to the POSIX.1 mkdir()" However, existing practise in System V (on which the rationale says this option was added) is to set the permission to the explict value specified by the mode argument to -m; and the text in lines 6950-6956 state that "The mode option-argument shall be the same as the mode operand defined for the chmod utility". The chmod utility ignores the umask. So for an example, say $ umask 22 $ mkdir -m 456 foodir $ ls -ld gives (on System V) dr--r-xrw- 2 andrew relx 512 Jul 1 04:29 foodir whereas the 2003.2 draft wants dr--r-xr-- 2 andrew relx 512 Jul 1 04:29 foodir The System V behaviour seems more inituitive as a user, and usage has been to, in a single command set the mode explicitly with the -m option, rather than call umask followed by mkdir -m xxx. My understanding of the rationale text lines 7184-7187 "For example, by default, the mode of the directory is affected by the file mode creation mask" is that this does not apply to the -m case, which is not the default. IEEE Interpretation for 1003.2-1992 ----------------------------------- The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale for Interpretation: ----------------------------- None. _____________________________________________________________________________