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=FYtFvPmS7QUcqz1+VHc6coNZByrPWqURmH/K7BLRFkOnbsR3eKUiI
	8lIsB+AVcbL+J8Ko8BlxK9CSU10M9cdmGl3zd78Kq8Ky4BwSkgWGIlcORrj6r48L
	ndv9OqKSyUrBbvJt1odhNTHtI+EKq2y5R4mjivIEpxx/X2LJ5AgpW8=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:32:25 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [TESTERS needed] New POSIX permission handling
Message-ID: <20150411143225.GJ7343@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20150410100703.GA4401@calimero.vinschen.de> <87lhhzcarc.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150411094414.GC19111@calimero.vinschen.de> <CADi7v6L1QrigKn0-ca-XXD2hSZxT5LTvZL2=xAR5+qrcBCEVZw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NY6JkbSqL3W9mApi"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADi7v6L1QrigKn0-ca-XXD2hSZxT5LTvZL2=xAR5+qrcBCEVZw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--NY6JkbSqL3W9mApi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Apr 11 07:11, Bryan Berns wrote:
> >> >   That means, even if SYSTEM or Administrators have full access to t=
he
> >> >   file, the POSIX permssion bits will not reflect that fact.  And wh=
ile
> >> >   other users get access denied based on the mask value, SYSTEM and
> >> >   Administrators will never get access denied based on the mask.
> >>
> >> If you want to put this to better use in larger settings it would seem
> >> preferrable if it was possible to define a list of users to treat this
> >> way in fstab.
> >
> > Nope, sorry, no configuration for this.  Either it's handled without
> > any exception, or for SYSTEM only, or for SYSTEM+Admins.  But either
> > way, we're doing it the same way on every system.
>=20
> Damn.  I was about to reply with Achim's exact same thought --- like a
> file in /etc with a list of SIDs.  I can empathize with Corinna's veto
> though -- having a hundred tweak-able settings in Cygwin is
> unmaintainable for the general populous.  I may apply a local patch to
> extend this ability myself because Cygwin has become rather unusable
> for users with home's on our network drives (given all the programs
> that attempt to do sanity checks on group perms).

I'd suggest to give the new ACL handling sa try first.  It might not
be as bad (anymore) as you think.

> That said, I appreciate what has been integrated --- it will help in
> several scenarios.  I will test the release this weekend.  Thanks for
> all the hard work!


Thank you,
Corinna

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

--NY6JkbSqL3W9mApi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=lOqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NY6JkbSqL3W9mApi--