Gnome3, Systemd and umask
2
I try to configure how Nautilus, GEdit and other Gnome applications set new file and directory permissions (002 instead of the default 022).
After reading posts and trying things, I found a "working" solution. All the users use these settings :
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/override.conf
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/override.conf
After reading a few more posts I removed these files and directories and tried :
mkdir /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/override.conf
I did this because both dbus.service and gnome-terminal-server.service are under user@1000.service (systemd-cgls):
Control group /:
-.slice
├─user.slice
│ ├─user-1000.slice
│ │ └─user@1000.service
│ │ ├─gnome-terminal-server.service
│ │ │ ├─1763 /usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server
│ │ │ ├─1771 bash
│ │ ├─dbus.service
│ │ │ └─1973 /usr/bin/nautilus --gapplication-service
Unfortunately, executing umask in my terminal prints 0022 and not 0002 but GEdit and Nautilus use 002 (I created a new text file and a new directory).
What am I missing ?
systemd gnome3
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
add a comment |
2
I try to configure how Nautilus, GEdit and other Gnome applications set new file and directory permissions (002 instead of the default 022).
After reading posts and trying things, I found a "working" solution. All the users use these settings :
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/override.conf
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/override.conf
After reading a few more posts I removed these files and directories and tried :
mkdir /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/override.conf
I did this because both dbus.service and gnome-terminal-server.service are under user@1000.service (systemd-cgls):
Control group /:
-.slice
├─user.slice
│ ├─user-1000.slice
│ │ └─user@1000.service
│ │ ├─gnome-terminal-server.service
│ │ │ ├─1763 /usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server
│ │ │ ├─1771 bash
│ │ ├─dbus.service
│ │ │ └─1973 /usr/bin/nautilus --gapplication-service
Unfortunately, executing umask in my terminal prints 0022 and not 0002 but GEdit and Nautilus use 002 (I created a new text file and a new directory).
What am I missing ?
systemd gnome3
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
1
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as~/.profileor/etc/profile)?
– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32
add a comment |
2
2
2
I try to configure how Nautilus, GEdit and other Gnome applications set new file and directory permissions (002 instead of the default 022).
After reading posts and trying things, I found a "working" solution. All the users use these settings :
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/override.conf
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/override.conf
After reading a few more posts I removed these files and directories and tried :
mkdir /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/override.conf
I did this because both dbus.service and gnome-terminal-server.service are under user@1000.service (systemd-cgls):
Control group /:
-.slice
├─user.slice
│ ├─user-1000.slice
│ │ └─user@1000.service
│ │ ├─gnome-terminal-server.service
│ │ │ ├─1763 /usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server
│ │ │ ├─1771 bash
│ │ ├─dbus.service
│ │ │ └─1973 /usr/bin/nautilus --gapplication-service
Unfortunately, executing umask in my terminal prints 0022 and not 0002 but GEdit and Nautilus use 002 (I created a new text file and a new directory).
What am I missing ?
systemd gnome3
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
I try to configure how Nautilus, GEdit and other Gnome applications set new file and directory permissions (002 instead of the default 022).
After reading posts and trying things, I found a "working" solution. All the users use these settings :
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/
mkdir /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/dbus.service.d/override.conf
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/user/gnome-terminal-server.service.d/override.conf
After reading a few more posts I removed these files and directories and tried :
mkdir /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/
echo -e "[Service]nUMask=002n" > /etc/systemd/system/user@.service.d/override.conf
I did this because both dbus.service and gnome-terminal-server.service are under user@1000.service (systemd-cgls):
Control group /:
-.slice
├─user.slice
│ ├─user-1000.slice
│ │ └─user@1000.service
│ │ ├─gnome-terminal-server.service
│ │ │ ├─1763 /usr/lib/gnome-terminal/gnome-terminal-server
│ │ │ ├─1771 bash
│ │ ├─dbus.service
│ │ │ └─1973 /usr/bin/nautilus --gapplication-service
Unfortunately, executing umask in my terminal prints 0022 and not 0002 but GEdit and Nautilus use 002 (I created a new text file and a new directory).
What am I missing ?
systemd gnome3
systemd gnome3
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
edited Jan 23 '18 at 6:49
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
asked Jan 21 '18 at 12:21
sylvain
113
113
1
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as~/.profileor/etc/profile)?
– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32
add a comment |
1
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as~/.profileor/etc/profile)?
– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32
1
1
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as
~/.profile or /etc/profile)?– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as
~/.profile or /etc/profile)?– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1
At least on fedora, bash overwrites the umask in /etc/bashrc
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file/etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
|
show 1 more comment
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f418624%2fgnome3-systemd-and-umask%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1
At least on fedora, bash overwrites the umask in /etc/bashrc
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file/etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
|
show 1 more comment
1
At least on fedora, bash overwrites the umask in /etc/bashrc
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file/etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
|
show 1 more comment
1
1
1
At least on fedora, bash overwrites the umask in /etc/bashrc
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
At least on fedora, bash overwrites the umask in /etc/bashrc
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
answered Dec 19 '18 at 14:13
stefan
191
191
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file/etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
|
show 1 more comment
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file/etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
Really? Are you sure?
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 14:25
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@G-Man yes, it does, for non-login shells: for uids starting at 200, if the user matches the group name, it’s set to 002, otherwise 022.
– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 14:37
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in
/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file /etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@StephenKitt: What we have here is a failure to communicate. I guess you're saying that bash overrides the umask in
/etc/bashrc. I read the above answer as saying that bash overwrites the file /etc/bashrc, which I (still) doubt.– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:08
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite
/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@G-Man ah, right, yes, bash doesn’t overwrite
/etc/bashrc, but if the author had meant that, why mention “the umask in”?– Stephen Kitt
Dec 19 '18 at 16:10
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
@StephenKitt If I modified a file, unconditionally setting a new value for one parameter (ignoring its existing value) and leaving the rest of the file unchanged, I might use similar language.
– G-Man
Dec 19 '18 at 16:15
|
show 1 more comment
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f418624%2fgnome3-systemd-and-umask%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Does your shell set the umask somewhere else (such as
~/.profileor/etc/profile)?– sebasth
Jan 23 '18 at 7:21
No, I checked ~/.bashrc too. I never modify these files. If the first solution works for my terminals, we can probably assume bash doesn't override the umask.
– sylvain
Jan 24 '18 at 8:32