I asked the fuse mailing list about this. Here is their answer (interspersed with my initial email):
""" > '-o umask=' seems to: > (A) have an odd display bug because of a missing ampersand (see [1]) and It's a feature not a bug. Notice, how other filesystems like msdos also use -oumask mount option in this sense. > (B) not actually affect the permissions of the fuse user. That is, a > umask of 444 will (with or without the display bug fixed) still allow > the fuse user the same exact read permissions as the underlying file > would. That is also a feature. Unless the '-odefault_permissions' option is given the filesystem is responsible for permission checking (which sshfs duly does: you can only access the filesystem according to your permissions on the server side). """ Are they right, that the umask usage is appropriate? If so, I guess there's no bug? -- fuse does not handle umask correctly https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/239792 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
