X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Nahor <nahor.j+gmane@gmail.com>
Subject:  Re: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7
Date:  Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:25:21 -0700
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <h5fho1$u66$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <h5cqnj$c9f$1@ger.gmane.org> <20090806142010.GE3204@calimero.vinschen.de> <h5f54a$nkt$1@ger.gmane.org> <20090806180441.GB19829@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
In-Reply-To: <20090806180441.GB19829@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  6 10:50, Nahor wrote:
>   
>> One weird thing though, the directory permission are 700 and yet I can  
>> list the content of the directory, cd in it and add/delete files. So  
>> permissions are not consistently checked. But then, I assume it's  
>> because all that is done by Windows/Samba while the permission check on  
>> the script is done by Cygwin? Same thing with executing binary (I was  
>> able to execute a binary file copied on the share even though I couldn't  
>> execute scripts)?
>>     
> Most of Cygwin relys on the permission checks of the underlying OS.
> In case of scripts, that's not possible.  Therefore it has to check
> script permissions explicitely.  Note that it doesn't do a simple
> POSIX permission bit check, rather it calls an OS function asking
> "does *this* account have the right to execute *that* file?"  That
> should result in the most consistent behaviour, as far as Windows
> consistency goes.
>   

Cygwin can't also check with an account with the same login and 
password? I assume that's what Windows does and why I'm allowed, as a 
user LOCAL\nahor, to access the share that belongs exclusively to the 
user DOMAIN\nahor.

    Nahor


--
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

