DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=Dis8DvOjf88OXjDhqw6cJP3/OokKX7tf6Zu3ncPu8xB3fIf19fObO
	YjC6PqiZQRwyaVcGi3hKk7SF9JspLVKf3yXH30LIpZKdaVi8HSD5Bs8I2OqHUaMx
	TyH+CPoNKPiTFDm0fisqrT36pstJybag9yCrsAsOHnb1FIFm/ZwPoU=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:10:36 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: (call-process ...) hangs in emacs
Message-ID: <20140828141036.GW20700@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <53E3F2AE.7030608@redhat.com> <53E4D01B.9010005@cornell.edu> <53F1F154.1020702@cornell.edu> <53FB87DC.2050908@cornell.edu> <87wq9v9j2y.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <53FD0662.5050208@cornell.edu> <20140827084245.GD20700@calimero.vinschen.de> <17910052714.20140828010203@yandex.ru> <20140828100112.GQ20700@calimero.vinschen.de> <187704841.20140828172337@yandex.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E75mJrUy8lRi9cGN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <187704841.20140828172337@yandex.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--E75mJrUy8lRi9cGN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 28 17:23, Andrey Repin wrote:
> > It's what "acl" means on Cygwin.  "acl" means that Windowsd ACLs are us=
ed
> > and permissions are handled and converted to and from POSIX permissions.
> > "noacl" means, Cygwin ignores all ACLs and fakes ownership and POSIX
> > permissions only based only on filetype and DOS R/O attribute, as it has
> > to on filesystems not supporting ACLs, like FAT/FAT32.
>=20
> Got it.
> It seems, Cygwin need a middle groung between these two for cases, where =
FS
> support access control, but don't want to be mangled.

I'm certainly not going to introduce another mount mode.  What Cygwin
could do is to perform ACL-based access checks independently of the
"acl"/"noacl" mount mode on FSes supporting ACLs.  However, if you want
ACLs, why not use the "acl" mount mode in the first place?

Still, it *might* makes sense in some scenarios, even if the results of
stat(2)/acl(2) may differ surprisingly from what access(2) returns.

We can also simply try it out.  A patch to enable this behaviour is
dead-simple.

Here's the prerequisite:

  Would more than one person want that *and* be willing to give this a
  *thorough* testing?


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--E75mJrUy8lRi9cGN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT/zhbAAoJEPU2Bp2uRE+g/8oP/AwsZ1QwxTUWC9mD/12nljLY
5QZ70JMADsZjXJVJ+0AOAiqoApL0CtLJ5sCvQqw0ecy5471k4jZdrisGcGOwDw7l
VSstH6DQfJtR+6bf13sUZNnl+ERKxFlGkw+NHjhY3GXP/q1aYhz3b8Ghe2qEuUkW
ihf85JZHYkAOQsAPHFgT8KIWVgirhsfmUBg2Nh7EbY78X94bVC26QQHzG8sh5fbj
geWfgZbg8A0TbsNVbbMA9zIDtgh990NWQVMAHA9nh7NhmwsQBNslXnvLU+M53rFt
KSntvUNlhGnJ/BjZVtjBhmUjAzjNlKOc0qgTY1Vkq/zRVwgOl4NanxGtpFzMmKGG
cX9/sriSDnsDVqRHQzIJxY7jrQlG4W1C5CBxLOT9eYL/SDgZTiYU0gm34i8Py5fp
H0LhTwdHfwwdVwGEL0R4Er5AhwOs/XQUjQ6noePxtdHtjtRXWJQm6UBl7NR9R+Jh
pZMPGb5xNb32CMg3eLCefy9viwAaa3zhdjMoe4GHf8hz9VQY90kNsuKZ0SA6Xmv1
D4BXPzR8aRCjBSyVBBtWyQn+tHSDcgruijhM4yq+HQ7Y//EdORBkbp3NnRduRHM1
jlH1FDvKRISOgqWxoQxekq1MQ8wGgVPVm6lXJpxuJy2g/Cw/Kfz++3h5tTbfgO1H
qMVc8m4MutTueiuLFdm3
=DGtE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--E75mJrUy8lRi9cGN--