X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 82BC43858028
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1675967158;
	bh=sGMjT5ugYMjm3pxnO/k1UGfaip3biCoMrbnSfGs58CM=;
	h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=NC5RyTrbGcupV/bqosBrQdpmJb1mzP9qRtyogfaARTjZf/LiMrDeilOcawACVv54h
	3KGpHnvleybmcDO5KTYxmEQZXa/+OQZUXUq7THL3BjrzNIrS7tJlnKvkKEJW5mPhHv
	26Xr+Yju2J9Aj2nF84aAijlpkPQJZTGTF3c78irs=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 150F63858C5F
Message-ID:	<8af5a564-094f-e4eb-25b4-bed2b9294f39@huarp.harvard.edu>
Date:	Thu, 9 Feb 2023 13:25:19 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject:	Re: chmod g+ws unsuccessful, "NULL SID" icacls missing
To:	"cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<0219f7c5-ca4c-bae3-3e13-abfc14c53e01 AT huarp DOT harvard DOT edu>
In-Reply-To:	<0219f7c5-ca4c-bae3-3e13-abfc14c53e01@huarp.harvard.edu>
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HTML_MESSAGE,
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
	TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-Content-Filtered-By:	Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Norton Allen via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Norton Allen <allen AT huarp DOT harvard DOT edu>
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 319IQLo4028037

On 2/8/2023 4:05 PM, Norton Allen via Cygwin wrote:
> I briefly raised this issue months ago and am trying to resolve it 
> again now.
>
> What I am trying to do is setup permissions so multiple users on one 
> machine can share full control over a particular directory hierarchy.
>
> On Linux I have usually been able to make things work with:
>
>    $ mkdir shared_dir
>    $ chgrp shared_group shared_dir
>    $ chmod g+ws shared_dir
>    $ umask 2
>
> User shells are configured with umask 2 so files they create have 
> group write. Users belong to shared_group. Files and subdirs created 
> under shared_dir are all in group shared_group. Files moved in retain 
> their original group, but the group members still have permission to 
> rename or delete them.
>
> The problem:
>
> $ chmod g+ws fails to set the 's' bit, and the resulting icacls output 
> does not contain any "NULL SID" entries. I am seeing the same problem 
> on (at least) two different systems setup by my organization. One of 
> these was just re-imaged and I installed Cygwin yesterday with no 
> customized configurations. AV is Windows Defender, but I suspect if 
> that were the culprit, there would have been more noise.
>
> I suspect there might be a group policy or something that is 
> interfering with Cygwin's strategy for implementing POSIX permissions. 
> I am pretty sure this worked correctly at some point in the past.
>
> Has anyone encountered this?
>
> Does group policy seem like a likely suspect? Anyone know which 
> policy(ies)? I think I might be able to get IT to cut me slack if I 
> knew what to ask for.
>
> I have also played with using setfacl directly to add permissions, but 
> as anyone who has read about Cygwin file permissions might guess, that 
> tends to have mixed/poor results, but I'd be open to any suggestions.
>

I don't actually have a system on which this is working to compare to, 
so I am not exactly sure how it is supposed to look when it's working 
correctly. The current behavior on  my new uncustomized installation:

    $ cd /home
    $ mkdir foo
    $ ls -ld foo
    drwxr-xr-x 1 nort None 0 Feb  9 12:20 foo

    $ chgrp testflight foo
    $ ls -ld foo
    drwxr-xr-x 1 nort testflight 0 Feb  9 12:20 foo

    $ chmod g+w foo
    $ ls -ld foo
    drwxrwxr-x 1 nort testflight 0 Feb  9 12:21 foo

    $ chmod g+s foo
    $ ls -ld foo
    drwxrwxr-x 1 nort testflight 0 Feb  9 12:21 foo

Comparing getfacl and icacls output between the last two steps indicates 
that chmod g+s foo does exactly nothing. I ran strace on that and see 
that the chmod() call returns zero, but I don't know what's going inside 
that.

Any idea what g+s should be doing? Any more/better information I can 
provide?


-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -