X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=HVeSXfyzMmRmvgpwD9uQRrr4OrnLomkGmLJqt6+UVq9wvA31cM6QI
	/UEbsvCUREr37qkOGNf2Jvpwb6Xd6vGqXj4gy08aMKEIm3wB3TUGQ5KckyE7rvWt
	rvrbVwGamOveIPPmJLm7mXGt4Hic9wopYszTBLlMiyqp+Y5M7mKzEA=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=0WK3WW49MsqQvucslObmPYCpR4Q=; b=UrVn3AAWeaGb1+L7zsYS86OdBDzA
	HyJDYc7HWCHyGPwTl4ITVMxVwRyiOehjUdRzueCdXs57puq5c3gX1H5GduRiwNmP
	mvXoYzvDQRH5rG/oxaWV0m4TxlHzFFhrXVs+fFoxtkjGnbxm9iXAC13BENP706qC
	an53Pk/qp0u7rK0=
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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	calimero.vinschen.de
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 17:42:25 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [TESTERS needed] New POSIX permission handling
Message-ID:	<20150415154225.GD7343@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20150410100703 DOT GA4401 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1428772308972-117455 DOT post AT n5 DOT nabble DOT com> <20150412083532 DOT GM7343 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <1428844894032-117479 DOT post AT n5 DOT nabble DOT com> <20150412142521 DOT GR7343 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20150412142521.GR7343@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--8SUh+pnhVixfgwb7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Ismail,

On Apr 12 16:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 12 06:21, =C4=B0smail D=C3=B6nmez wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen-2 wrote
> > > On Apr 11 10:11, donmez wrote:
> > >> Corinna Vinschen-2 wrote
> > >> > I just applied a patch I'm working on for quite some time now.  As=
 I
> > >> > outlined before on this list, the POSIX permission handling has ag=
ed
> > >> > considerably and, for historical reasons, did things differently
> > >> > dependent on the calling function.  I took the time to reimplement=
 the
> > >> > core functionality to handle all ACLs as strictly following POSIX =
ACL
> > >> > rules as possible.
> > >>=20
> > >> I tested the updated package and at least quilt and mutt seems to br=
oken
> > >> by
> > >> the permission changes:
> > >> [...]
> > > No offense, but this is not overly helpful.  The problem is to learn
> > > *why* this happens and how to fix it.  For that I'd need to know what
> > > your permissions on /tmp look like (ls -l, getfacl, icacls).  Creating
> > > files in my /tmp (having an old-style ACL) with the following
> > > permissions works as desired for me:
> >=20
> > Hopefully this will shed some more light:
>=20
> It does, thank you.  The problem is the dreaded "owner =3D=3D group" prob=
lem
> introduced with these weird Microsoft accounts.  I completely forgot
> about this while implementing the new code.  It's pretty tricky to get
> the Windows ACL right for this.  Additionally the ACLs already created
> by setup are... borderline correct only.  Back to the drawing board...

I just applied a patch which is supposed to handle this owner=3D=3Dgroup
scenario better.

In short, Cygwin will try to handle POSIX user and group permissions
separately, even if owner =3D=3D group.  This is basically a fake as far
as the actual permissions of the account are concerned, but it allows
applications still to chmod to different user and group perms.  It
just *looks* different in the end.

The only restriction of this is that the POSIX user permissions are
always changed so that the user perms are >=3D the group perms in this
situation.  So this:

  chmod 460 foo

will be internally twisted into

  chmod 660 foo


I uploaded new developer snapshots to https://cygwin.com/snapshots/
and I'm just uploading a 2.0.0-0.5 test release with this change.

Please give either of them a try.  I'd be interested in feedback,
ideally with details if something doesn't work as desired.


Thanks,
Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--8SUh+pnhVixfgwb7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=jWPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8SUh+pnhVixfgwb7--

- Raw text -