X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:48:07 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7 Message-ID: <20090807074807.GM3204@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20090806142010.GE3204@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090806180441.GB19829@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A7B5346.9060307@cygwin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Aug 6 15:38, Nahor wrote: > Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> On 08/06/2009 05:25 PM, Nahor wrote: >>> Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> I doubt that assumption would hold up to much scrutiny. Local and >> domain users, despite how similar the name and/or password might be, >> don't have any relationship to each other. There's a unique ID >> generated for a user of either type so there's no definitive way to >> correlate one user ID with another, even if that was desirable. I >> think you'll find that you have access to the share because you've >> been authenticated to use it, regardless of whether you're using the >> local or domain version of your login. But that has little bearing on >> the >> script in question. Since Windows doesn't see the script as executable, >> asking it for help in this matter wouldn't be useful, no matter who the >> user is when the question is asked. > > Maybe you're right but why can I execute a binary then? > I copied notepad.exe on the share. I set its permissions to 700. I can > then launch notepad without problem. But with scripts, that doesn't work. > So somewhere, in Windows or in Cygwin, something must behave > differently. Could it then be that Windows doesn't check the execute > permission when executing from a share? I think there's some magic going on between your local Windows and the Samba server. This magic doesn't kick in when performing a straight permission check. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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