X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B6B8C38555A0
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1676047382;
	bh=lYKXPp76unO5tsFfRM5XalN0hdmKhwe0rV/M9BSeKMk=;
	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=XjbAVauPooMsDQJregQg5d2PHqfTlmUiJwHFbi2hyVPIS8d7thQQQcI2XzxQZbk9j
	YhiPIHIR5x+NFySX+L8gBa2Ot0kAWEa/VTbXXzTcWpKtWDgtOw+ADysOPYSGmMz9Hi
	fW+OKMkdkfmsCk8sZmXRiTEclmXwPjWoMx4Urpak=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C747E3858C5F
Message-ID:	<1edf29a6-9fec-2964-cf99-e722e3121f4f@huarp.harvard.edu>
Date:	Fri, 10 Feb 2023 11:42:21 -0500
MIME-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/102.7.2
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>
	<8af5a564-094f-e4eb-25b4-bed2b9294f39 AT huarp DOT harvard DOT edu>
	<Y+VhGwpEkYx2TEMR AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<Y+VhGwpEkYx2TEMR@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 31AGhQ3S032522

On 2/9/2023 4:09 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Norton,
>
> On Feb  9 13:25, Norton Allen via Cygwin wrote:
>> 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:
>> [...]
>> Any idea what g+s should be doing? Any more/better information I can
>> provide?
> What you observe is a bug in Cygwin, plain and simple.  Without going
> into too much detail, part of the problem could never be observed with
> older coreutils, which we had to live with for much too long in the
> Cygwin distro.  The newer coreutils handles permissions slightly
> differently and that dropped the mask from the buggy code.
>
> I applied a patch which, hopefully, fixes this problem (in fact, plural,
> "these problems").
>
> A new Cygwin test release 3.5.0-0.162.g498fce80ef33 is just being built
> and should be up in an hour or so.  You can simply install it via
> Cygwin's setup tool as soon as it's on your favorite mirror.
>
> If it works as desired, it will be part of the next Cygwin bugfix
> release 3.4.6.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Corinna

Corinna,

The fix seems to work like a charm! And I am happy to be wrong about the 
source of the problem.



-- 
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 -