X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4919B55D.10606@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:39:57 -0500 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080723 Fedora/2.0.0.16-1.fc8 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.16 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Cygwin Everyone group permissions and Vista "shared files" (*not* shared folders) References: <5e4cc4153gf115hcpi4ilk2s787klg6sra@4ax.com> <20080929165252.GC11053@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080930163346.GK11053@calimero.vinschen.de> <20415300.post@talk.nabble.com> <20081110115230.GA2884@calimero.vinschen.de> <7j5ih4pea29aj7pnmn186b8uitoeboetkb@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <7j5ih4pea29aj7pnmn186b8uitoeboetkb@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Barry Kelly wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> No, it's not feasible. If you leave out the Everyone ACE, the >> permissions are not POSIX-like anymore. Leaving out means that others >> have no permissions at all. Not even to see the permissions. That's >> not correct from a POSIX POV. > >> Even if others don't have rwx >> permissions, they need at least FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES and READ_DAC >> permissions. This requires to have an Everyone ACE. > > Why can't we have a security toggle that leaves out the Everyone ACE, > and the POSIX subsystem interprets failure to read the DACL as no > permissions? > > Cygwin still needs to handle with files created by other users and > programs that it doesn't have permission to view the permissions of, so > the second half of this requirement is already present. > > I, for one, use Cygwin not primarily as a POSIX emulation layer, but as > my main Windows user interface. IMHO in this situation, being posixly > correct is a handicap that Cygwin could do without, at the user's > choice. So what about the "nontsec" option doesn't address your need then? -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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/