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=MLdtcs4w3JASWsEWGAZ11Q6BusDOXtvl3rKg1I05Cj9gIJ/abZ/i8
	uxma4n8GnhvxIyW7S+OKlzZJzF1HWFaZW4B7v7XXmnUADrlWVldKs0arsUxRzwT4
	v/7YASrSxoXPD9ZW9CTwqBbq9TIbSz/9mIAspr0TVhF2nehRgsPyeY=
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=+jReaw/CHCz+G1Wsd9gfZ2OoQbA=; b=XtpSlLvRkTMQh/Zh8+A/ThjtEQ4i
	rB6lLe1r5W7aQxzpCtC863tFRiKppWjyMHCu4v8RtWCX9tmtTVW4r2BioX6ufEB+
	M1qx9F7GdLtg/g3865a4EFuu6Yw4RHJPfgLzR1382xaDCe/1fCmhRy+l4Y4VXPiA
	ISPCCQj+1FEt2Cg=
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=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	calimero.vinschen.de
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:10:28 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.3.0-0.4
Message-ID:	<20151027101028.GS5319@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<announce DOT 20151022162227 DOT GC5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20151023T153449-500 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20151026100756 DOT GC31990 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <562E4ED0 DOT 7020907 AT Nexgo DOT DE> <20151027092722 DOT GN5319 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <n0nhja$1ji$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<n0nhja$1ji$1@ger.gmane.org>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--Ca5z/wkVxIQXz1GF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Oct 27 10:53, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 27.10.2015 um 10:27 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> >>That test is almost as bad as it can ever get.  Given that enumerating =
all
> >>AD accouts with mkpasswd takes about 2 hours and I'm doing something ve=
ry
> >>similar here, I'm not even surprised.  I was more surprised to see the
> >>server go so fast, but my guess is that it can use jumbo frames to talk=
 to
> >>the AD.
> >
> >Ok, so you don't seem to think this is a major drawback.
>=20
> I didn't say I would not like to see it run faster.

Me neither.  No wonder Windows largely skips showing effective
permissions unless explicitely requested by the user.

> But considering the
> alternatives, working correctly all the times at the current speed seems =
to
> cover my more typical uses a lot better.

Ok.

> >No worries.  I'm mulling over the idea to release 2.3.0 this week
> >without the new ACL handling code to get the latest fixes out of the
> >door first and push this stuff into a 2.4.0 release in November.
>=20
> As long as you keep reminding us which snapshot has the new ACL handling
> code, that is OK with me.

I guess you should better use the latest test releases, which I'll
always build with the new ACL handling.  The snapshots are rather for
quick&dirty testing the latest changes.

> I will want to push out the snapshot in a week or
> two and remove some of my workarounds for ACL corrections and/or noacl
> mounted directories in order to see if these things are working now for
> real.

Cool.  I'm looking forward to it.

> >>>Given the above result, I'm wondering if we can afford using AuthZ at
> >>>all.  OTOH I don't see any other way to get the correct POSIX permissi=
ons
> >>>from a non-Cygwin ACL :(
> >>
> >>If you really want fast but incorrect there's always the "noacl" mount
> >>option.
> >
> >Right.  OTOH, maybe we could enhance the "acl" mount option?
> >
> >"acl" -> "quickacl" -> "noacl"?
>=20
> Let's worry about that middle ground scenario when the ACL code has proven
> itself.  The danger here is that the edge cases that will make problems a=
re
> not easy to spot before you run into them

Good point.


Corinna

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

--Ca5z/wkVxIQXz1GF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

--Ca5z/wkVxIQXz1GF--

- Raw text -