Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/01/25/14:55:47
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU
On Jan 25 11:25, brassrat wrote:
>
> I agree that the having an R/O attribute conflicts with the concept of ACLS;
> however, it is not true that the chmod command does not change this flag.
> For example,
> if you chmod +w a file with the R/O flag 'set' the R/O flag is reset.
> (maybe this is a side-effect of the ACL-based processing within windows?)
No, it's deliberate. The R/O flag is in the way(*). It's not a concept
known in POSIX and POSIX permissions are represented by matching ACEs
much better.
> so the current behavior is somewhat inconsistent, especially given that
> chmod works differently depending upon whether it is 'given' a DOS or a
> POSIX path.
That's a side-effect of the DOS path handling. DOS paths are handled
as noacl paths, as described in the User's Guide. Thus DOS paths are
always handled same as FAT/FAT32 filesystems, even when pointing to NTFS.
> from a cygwin/posix perspective, doesn't 'chmod a-w FILE' mean that the file
> should not writable? and doesn't setting the 'r/o flag' (if supported by the
> underlying file system) capture this concept better than some combination of
> acl entries?
No. If you look into the ACEs representing the POSIX permissions you'll
see why.
Corinna
(*) For instance, it breaks admin backup/restore permissions and requires
special handling in calls to open(2).
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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 -