Re: Read-only dir & files within?

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jack

I hope you've checked out Margaret's presentation on all this. So far as 
I can tell from viewing it today, security in the IFS has requirements 
of more than 1 scenario - and they are all checked and must be satisfied.

But a test is in order, just as Mark did with the *READONLY and *ALLOBJ 
- interesting results. And so far I understand Margaret saying that 
settings in one of the security scenarios can affect results of running 
commands in different scenario. I'm going by vague memory of the term 
she used, but a PC attribute like *READONLY can block an attempted 
action under a different scenario.

I believe the OP should forget about using this attribute - again, 
Margaret distinguishes PC attributes from permissions, whether IBM i or 
POSIX. Instead, the OP should only have read and execute bits turned on. 
She also gives a mapping between the mode settings and IBM i security 
settings.

Cheers
Vern

On 4/3/2024 8:49 PM, Jack Woehr wrote:
> I suspect if you'd just ssh'ed (or QSH'ed) into your box and done:
>
> rm -rf /home/MSW/test​
>
> it would have worked, and barring that:
>
> ​chmod u+w /home/MSW/test; rm -rf /home/MSW/test
>
> Dealing with the Unix file bits thru OS/400 authorities and WRKLNK etc. will grow hair on your palms 🙂
>
> ________________________________
> From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mark Waterbury <mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 6:42 PM
> To: VERNON HAMBERG Owner via MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Read-only dir & files within?
>
> Hi, Vern,
>
> Thanks for the "heads up" about this.  I have never heard of a *READONLY attribute before.