DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=ZFFZ5y0ApHUueXo3Ws9n8v2ECc3U/r8bme/lEpgC8zo
	+P34MztaBa7L7ISbSmNd0+x/2Amo/phVUWv02dVeTb68UYOkR9MmCKbnAGkm0AKy
	r9Ll/lDCUEWS0Vn/fUYBpcr53uR7HO1TGyW5+b4pOPCYzEnapyg5RweMJrgU/A7E
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <549DE9C1.1090403@tlinx.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:05:37 -0800
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin@tlinx.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: RFD: cygwin ACLs: NFS or POSIX model: ease in adapting to CIFS ACLs?
References: <549756D2.8000600@tlinx.org> <549A37B4.3020200@cygwin.com>
In-Reply-To: <549A37B4.3020200@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 12/21/2014 06:25 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> I seem to remember that the cygwin ACL's were based on NFS acls not
>> the POSIX ACL's.  
> 
> I can't speak to the specific issues you're raising or shed any light
> on whether they are actually issues with Cygwin.  As far as the Cygwin
> implementation is concerned, I believe the links below shed some light
> on the original implementation and the direction things are heading.
> At this time, the first link still refers to a test version of the
> Cygwin package, though the version number is different.
> 
> <https://www.marshut.net/kqrriw/test-release-cygwin-1-7-33-1.html>
> <https://cygwin.com/preliminary-ug/ntsec.html>
> 
> Hope this helps.
---
Indeed, though not in the details, but that may not be necessary depending
on what this means:


    - Revamp Solaris ACL implementation to more closely work like
      POSIX ACLs are supposed to work. Finally implement a CLASS_OBJ 
emulation.
      Update getfacl(1)/setfacl(1) accordingly.
---
Not very specific, but may have addressed any issues in that area.

The part that looks a bit more "hairy" are the auto-RID-UID mappings
and how those will work with existing UID/RID mappings coming from
a samba server...  Specifically, will cygwin support UID's > 32 bit?

I found to cleanly separate various login & service types into contiguous
blocks was good to multiply by large numbers.  I'm thinking cygwin already
supports the longer numbers or things like 'TRUSTED INSTALLER' wouldn't show
with the right owner or be changeable in cygwin...

Thanks for the reply...


--
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