Subject: Re: setfacl on Cygwin
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: "Corinna Vinschen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:44:26 -0400
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Haible <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > What error code do you want?  EINVAL?
>
> EINVAL sounds right, yes. The Solaris manual page [1] also mentions it:
>
>  "EINVAL
>    ... the cmd argument is SETACL or ACE_SETACL and the ACL specified in
>    aclbufp is not valid."

Right.  That's the thing - this is a different error condition, one
that could not possibly arise on Solaris (since there is only one
concept of user there).  The question is, what should the error code
be for this new condition that can only arise on Cygwin?  Since it's
an invalid user identity for the requested operation, EINVAL seems
appropriate; it's just not what the man page says EINVAL means in this
context.

The only other standard error code that leaps out at me as possibly
appropriate is EPERM ("Operation not permitted").

Sadly, the "no such thing exists" errors are all quite specific as to
the thing in question: ENOENT for files, ESRCH for processes, ENXIO
for devices, etc.

-- 
Mark J. Reed <[email-masked]>

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