Unable to write to new partitions

[Tom H]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Ralf Mardorf <silver.bullet at zoho.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 14:46:27 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Ralf Mardorf
>> <silver.bullet at zoho.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:22:31 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The missing write access much likely is caused by a pitfall, the
>>>> missing execution access permission of the directory.
>>>
>>> PS: Keep in mind a directory can't be executable, just a file could
>>> be executable, IOW the x bit on a folder refers to "indexing".
>>
>> You can't access a directory if it isn't executable (unless you're
>> root).
>
> This is geek talk, Colin already indirectly pointed this out,
> fortunately Ian is smart enough, to translate my geek explanation into
> understandable user language. However, lately Bret runs into an
> understandable misinterpretation.
>
> Tom, without doubts, you and I know that even "sudo" could behave
> different, when using different sources for "sudo" ;). IOW some issues
> could mushroom. IOW there is no absolute for "unless you're root",
> unless a "real" root account is enabled.
>
> Let alone that the issue Bret mentioned is tricky, since rootm, is root,
> is root, is root, but there anyway are pitfalls, at least the umask
> pitfall.

"su" behaves differently on Ubuntu (and Debian, Gentoo) than on Fedora
(and Arch, RHEL) because Ubuntu's "su" is provided by "login" (built
from [source package] "shadow") and Fedora's "su" is provided by
"util-linux.

"sudo" behaves differently on Ubuntu because there's a weird patch to
the build-time code (as opposed to the run-time config).

But these differences are limited to envvars that, whether you use
"sudo", "su", both, with or without "-l" for either or whether you
login directly as root, don't effect root's power to ignore/override
an unset executable bit.