Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/08/10/12:42:45
On 06/08/2009 18:50, Nahor wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 5 13:40, Nahor wrote:
>>> If I mount with "noacl", I get a slightly different error but still
>>> no cigar:
>>> $ ./t.sh
>>> -bash: ./t.sh: /bin/sh: bad interpreter: Permission denied
>>> $
>> This only happens if your account doesn't have execute permissions for
>> the interpreter, in this case /bin/sh. Is it possible that /bin/sh.exe
>> has weird permission settings for some reason?
>
> The permissions on the interpreter are OK.
> $ ls -l /bin/sh
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 nahor Administrators 472064 Jul 1 18:20 /bin/sh
> $
>
> For that matter, scripts running off the local disk run fine.
>
> Looks like the same problem of inconsistent account ID, setting the
> permissions to 755 or running as the domain user fix the "bad
> interpreter" error.
I also have this problem in it's second (noacl) form. With this mount
//necker/jon on /home/jon type smbfs (binary,exec,noacl,user)
running the t.sh test script fails in a directory on this mount
Jon AT byron ~
$ ls -al t.sh
-rwxr-xr-x 1 Jon None 19 2009-08-06 15:46 t.sh
Jon AT byron ~
$ ./t.sh
-bash: ./t.sh: /bin/sh: bad interpreter: Permission denied
but works fine in a different directory
Jon AT byron ~
$ cp t.sh /
Jon AT byron ~
$ cd /
Jon AT byron /
$ ./t.sh
foo
Running .exe's from the share works fine.
I don't think I have the option of not using noacl, since this share resides
on a LinkStation NAS which is running an old version of Samba (2.2.2 if google
is to be believed) without acl support.
I'm pretty sure this used to work with Cygwin 1.5
>> One weird thing though, the directory permission are 700 and yet I can
>> list the content of the directory, cd in it and add/delete files. So
>> permissions are not consistently checked. But then, I assume it's
>> because all that is done by Windows/Samba while the permission check on
>> the script is done by Cygwin? Same thing with executing binary (I was
>> able to execute a binary file copied on the share even though I couldn't
>> execute scripts)?
>
> Most of Cygwin relys on the permission checks of the underlying OS.
> In case of scripts, that's not possible. Therefore it has to check
> script permissions explicitely. Note that it doesn't do a simple
> POSIX permission bit check, rather it calls an OS function asking
> "does *this* account have the right to execute *that* file?" That
> should result in the most consistent behaviour, as far as Windows
> consistency goes.
Forgive me if you've already explained the solution, but how then do I arrange
for scripts on this share to be seen as executable?
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -