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:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=KBGHb/pijzaCr5te
	yD9arFyF+EVmsDYCfmqhkz5xMAOusjDJzMo9rsH3z0MFnpX3m7ufjHX4noB7Nq2n
	C75H8RqgBXJfOKEJevdL7cLcCFdveyYAhx/mvuqYSYHWmuK9IvdosphLjKYGLgJX
	iCKXKHupUjc3+MxBOpPphUKcKj8=
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:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=hM6yCYNSWSjNgwas3ZM9Y1
	D7qDE=; b=eWmGu0tIGTeF92FASmgtMeZgZcPSGdfCPTuIxbP/Y3cdBLq55RKCmj
	FS8CjKYmhQSu9iGbWjSTC/F6ujZ/zh3xPRrdamML1dqGBUrHEvAUYWqz7Fqs5MBi
	uC1slpKVFglCuv4HJ7IofZTTYCy89nuAeofqYsGGNGJyqQUUkTjn8=
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=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=badly, H*Ad:D*ca, brian, card
X-HELO:	smtp-out-so.shaw.ca
X-Authority-Analysis:	v=2.3 cv=OeS28CbY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:117 a=MVEHjbUiAHxQW0jfcDq5EA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=rdQPxTJrYncGQmDoX3QA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
Reply-To:	Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca
Subject:	Re: Issue when trying to access files on a locked BitLocker volume
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<CAFBd_9syterX=7PSFb2+Z_KWMxvdrH3o_Rq3oJ65AVOYDX2=ig AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20180419134552 DOT GQ15911 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
From:	Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
Message-ID:	<0c7d2164-b5a3-74eb-238f-e213524b3163@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:45:01 -0600
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20180419134552.GQ15911@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4wfLqZgxatKzXeZRAc4yKsEmUUX/KskuE0M33P2e/DxJE90ConunNKC2E9uL1HPKq9jhAl/P9CN78QTRD5I3xr+2aJW9ZRFSFzJNc3T8jfAZ8jVHBWzqie 3rBCbi5o0ny0xir6GLIqvxQG2ytDupeL8BFLn+vrhfgTFjXFrhQT9KympsbaRPXK8Q4SgPz1qVMOfg==
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 2018-04-19 07:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 19 13:38, Vincent Gheur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using a Bitlocker encrypted SD card, which stays most of the time in my
>> laptop, but is generally not unlocked. I'm unlocking it only when I need to
>> access files on it.
>>
>> I have also a script which is started at regular intervals, which copies
>> some critical files on the SD card when it is unlocked. I was using till
>> recently a *very* old version of cygwin (probably downloaded 10 years ago),
>> in which I could check whether my SD card was unlocked or not by using *if
>> [ -d <folder-on-SD-card> ]*. I have downloaded a new version of cygwin in
>> January, as I migrated to Windows 10 and was encountering some issues with
>> it. Since I upgraded, this test is not working anymore. When the SD card is
>> unlocked, testing " -d <folder> " returns TRUE. It returns FALSE when I do
>> the same test on a non Bitlocker volume for a non-existent folder (which is
>> the expected behaviour).
> 
> I'm not sure I understand.
> 
> You're testing with -d <non-existing-folder> if the drive is unlocked?
> And you're expecting... what exactly?  The test should return FALSE in
> all cases, regardless of the drive being locked or unlocked.
> 
> Sure, it sounds wrong if -d <non-existing-folder> returns TRUE, but
> I wonder if I misunderstand what you're doing.
> 
> Can you rephrase this to make it more clear?
> 
> Also, can you create an strace of the wrong behaviour to see if there's
> a certain error or NT status code which indicates the problem to be
> handled more correctly?

ISTM he's saying (badly) he's testing for an *existing* BitLocker folder which
should only be accessible when the volume is unlocked, but current Cygwin
returns that the folder is accessible, even when the volume should be locked.
Sounds like current Windows may be being "helpful" or caching volume info.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
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 -