may be interested in a solution as the 2 formers do not seem to be aware of any.
<details>
<summary>The persons:</summary>
```
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
hF4DTQa9Wom5MBgSAQdAbVD1Fr1s/4JfZDgkHO2hSZ3jzxkp7l3r9YF4N3mMuWIw
xdDO5OF3iP+/e0hr77lftNy1wbPhK7j7fqlyaFZSHduTiHlFaoe1iZhtzVzSqnAM
0l0BBelzs5K4roxSPtFbAuH8J/ldR7/HU1j9nl0ktfjV3JwfVlI617gjmdmYTHCQ
ZA37GmpdhkiFCNMtY0NCObVp9dBiogHupfJdI9zzjwa5uVcfFMvTeZikNSxK4Ss=
=IfJO
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
```
</details>
may be interested in a solution as the 2 formers do not seem to be aware of any.
So the aim is not to create a group for all (used) combinations of user permission access, even if teams to some extent work that way. We want subteams somehow.
So the aim is not to create a group for all (used) combinations of user permission access, even if teams to some extent work that way. We want subteams somehow.
I like recursivity so let us look for recursive approach.
Having to run again the permission grant on new recursive folder is fine in my opinion for the moment.
I like recursivity so let us look for recursive approach.
Having to run again the permission grant on new recursive folder is fine in my opinion for the moment.
ls: cannot open directory '/home/user_0/': Permission denied
so this is not perfect but it is a good start.
How can we figure out what users we gave access to?
As `user_0`:
```bash
ls /home/user_0/
```
```
ls: cannot open directory '/home/user_0/': Permission denied
```
so this is not perfect but it is a good start.
How can we figure out what users we gave access to?
DuckDuckGo search Linux give access to a user to a folder without giving access to parent folder.
Maybe x may help, see the Unix Stack Exchange answer 541283, should just verify that someone is not able to execute a file he does not have access to.
DuckDuckGo search *Linux give access to a user to a folder without giving access to parent folder*.
Maybe `x` may help, see [the Unix Stack Exchange answer 541283](https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/541283), should just verify that someone is not able to execute a file he does not have access to.
setfacl 2.3.1 -- set file access control lists
Usage: setfacl [-bkndRLP] { -m|-M|-x|-X ... } file ...
-m, --modify=acl modify the current ACL(s) of file(s)
-M, --modify-file=file read ACL entries to modify from file
-x, --remove=acl remove entries from the ACL(s) of file(s)
-X, --remove-file=file read ACL entries to remove from file
-b, --remove-all remove all extended ACL entries
-k, --remove-default remove the default ACL
--set=acl set the ACL of file(s), replacing the current ACL
--set-file=file read ACL entries to set from file
--mask do recalculate the effective rights mask
-n, --no-mask don't recalculate the effective rights mask
-d, --default operations apply to the default ACL
-R, --recursive recurse into subdirectories
-L, --logical logical walk, follow symbolic links
-P, --physical physical walk, do not follow symbolic links
--restore=file restore ACLs (inverse of `getfacl -R')
--test test mode (ACLs are not modified)
-v, --version print version and exit
-h, --help this help text
Note:
-m, --modify=acl modify the current ACL(s) of file(s)
...
-b, --remove-all remove all extended ACL entries
[The Unix Stack Exchange answer 347478](https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/347478):
```bash
setfacl --help
```
<details>
<summary>Output:</summary>
```
setfacl 2.3.1 -- set file access control lists
Usage: setfacl [-bkndRLP] { -m|-M|-x|-X ... } file ...
-m, --modify=acl modify the current ACL(s) of file(s)
-M, --modify-file=file read ACL entries to modify from file
-x, --remove=acl remove entries from the ACL(s) of file(s)
-X, --remove-file=file read ACL entries to remove from file
-b, --remove-all remove all extended ACL entries
-k, --remove-default remove the default ACL
--set=acl set the ACL of file(s), replacing the current ACL
--set-file=file read ACL entries to set from file
--mask do recalculate the effective rights mask
-n, --no-mask don't recalculate the effective rights mask
-d, --default operations apply to the default ACL
-R, --recursive recurse into subdirectories
-L, --logical logical walk, follow symbolic links
-P, --physical physical walk, do not follow symbolic links
--restore=file restore ACLs (inverse of `getfacl -R')
--test test mode (ACLs are not modified)
-v, --version print version and exit
-h, --help this help text
```
</details>
<details>
<summary>Note:</summary>
```
-m, --modify=acl modify the current ACL(s) of file(s)
...
-b, --remove-all remove all extended ACL entries
```
</details>
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
See #59.
The persons:
may be interested in a solution as the 2 formers do not seem to be aware of any.
So the aim is not to create a group for all (used) combinations of user permission access, even if teams to some extent work that way. We want subteams somehow.
DuckDuckGo search Linux give access to a user to a folder.
Benjamin_Loison/adduser/issues/1 would help.
In theory can leverage the
chownother user group to have both users having access, but let us consider the cleaner more general case.I like recursivity so let us look for recursive approach.
Having to run again the permission grant on new recursive folder is fine in my opinion for the moment.
From
user_1:on Debian 12 GNOME.
So the aim is not to have access to
/home/user_0/but just the mentioned subfolder.Output:
As
user_0:Source: the Ask Ubuntu answer 809562
does not return anything.
Output:
On
user_1still face:As
user_0:does not return anything.
As
user_1:Output:
As
user_0:so this is not perfect but it is a good start.
How can we figure out what users we gave access to?
DuckDuckGo search Linux list ACL.
As
user_0:Output:
DuckDuckGo search Linux give access to a user to a folder without giving access to parent folder.
Maybe
xmay help, see the Unix Stack Exchange answer 541283, should just verify that someone is not able to execute a file he does not have access to.DuckDuckGo search Linux remove ACL.
The Unix Stack Exchange answer 347478:
Output:
Note:
Output:
does not return anything.
Output:
does not return anything.
Output:
Source: the Unix Stack Exchange answer 94217
does not return anything.
Output:
Output:
Output:
total 52K
drwxr-x--- 2 benjamin_loison benjamin_loison 4.0K Feb 22 13:17 new_folder
...
/home/user_0/test.sh:As
user_2:Output:
DuckDuckGo search Linux allow traversing directory.
The Super User answer 792908 seems to show how to leak metadata of files in parent folders only to the given user.
I verified the metadata leak issue from a fresh environment.
See the message: