[GH-ISSUE #1009] s3fs POSIX permissions on Google Storage #554

Closed
opened 2026-03-04 01:46:41 +03:00 by kerem · 6 comments
Owner

Originally created by @cafarm on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/issues/1009

Does s3fs support POSIX permissions uploaded to Google Storage with gsutil cp -P?

Or do you need to mount the bucket with s3fs and copy in the files to preserve file permissions?

Originally created by @cafarm on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/s3fs-fuse/s3fs-fuse/issues/1009 Does s3fs support POSIX permissions uploaded to Google Storage with `gsutil cp -P`? Or do you need to mount the bucket with s3fs and copy in the files to preserve file permissions?
kerem closed this issue 2026-03-04 01:46:41 +03:00
Author
Owner

@cafarm commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019):

It looks like s3fs uses the metadata headers gid, mode, mtime, and uid, where gsutil cp -P uses the metadata headers goog-reserved-posix-gid, -mode, -uid, -file-mtime. Dang.

Any chance s3fs can consider supporting gutil's metadata header names? gsutil -m is much faster at uploading a significant amount of data than s3fs.

<!-- gh-comment-id:481393491 --> @cafarm commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019): It looks like s3fs uses the metadata headers gid, mode, mtime, and uid, where `gsutil cp -P` uses the metadata headers goog-reserved-posix-gid, -mode, -uid, -file-mtime. Dang. Any chance s3fs can consider supporting gutil's metadata header names? `gsutil -m` is much faster at uploading a significant amount of data than s3fs.
Author
Owner

@gaul commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019):

It is possible to add a flag which uses these headers instead. Pull requests welcome!

<!-- gh-comment-id:481468175 --> @gaul commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019): It is possible to add a flag which uses these headers instead. Pull requests welcome!
Author
Owner

@cafarm commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019):

Ok great, I’ll investigate

<!-- gh-comment-id:481471207 --> @cafarm commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2019): Ok great, I’ll investigate
Author
Owner

@gaul commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2020):

@cafarm any updates?

<!-- gh-comment-id:581290406 --> @gaul commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2020): @cafarm any updates?
Author
Owner

@cafarm commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2020):

I ended up taking a different approach that did not require this feature, so I no longer have a use for it. This issue can be closed if you feel like the feature has limited interest.

<!-- gh-comment-id:581398071 --> @cafarm commented on GitHub (Feb 3, 2020): I ended up taking a different approach that did not require this feature, so I no longer have a use for it. This issue can be closed if you feel like the feature has limited interest.
Author
Owner

@gaul commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2020):

Fixed by #1286.

<!-- gh-comment-id:638857140 --> @gaul commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2020): Fixed by #1286.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/s3fs-fuse#554
No description provided.