X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<49B22717.5020508@columbus.rr.com>
Date:	Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:49:43 -0500
From:	Paul McFerrin <pmcferrin AT columbus DOT rr DOT com>
Reply-To:	pmcferrin AT columbus DOT rr DOT com
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Turning off execute permission
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

I've been reading:
http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#ntsec-files
on the execute permissions.  Did I read that it was impossible to deny 
execute permissions??  In my tests, the follow is always "true" if a 
file has no execute permissions: (mode 666 or 000)
  [ -x apachectl ]
  test -x apachectl
for all of the shells

Did I uncover a bug somewhere  or is this a "feature"??  I guess my 
alternative would to use the "read" permission bit and just rename the 
file to effective disable it.  If there is no real execute bit because 
of Windows ACLs, then that statement should be explicitly stated if its 
in order.  If that is the reason you'll trying to say in section titled 
" The POSIX permission mapping leak", can/should it be a little more 
explicit?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -