DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=gzCaRAVhuVDn/UGx
	PtORGxnokJrOZhemZAPNZE9lfdlOAxkegKsaXPew/BmhEknYH0SctnqxmAAzCz9b
	UYA/3ZYBq/1+b6cfMSyK1xlZo6X/FL4IdFPffMaWCC7oIPmGftokqabejPkC1824
	kpAP92cVxYGDR7C6jLCDnR8+yTc=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca
Subject: Re: Cygwin's ACL handling is NOT interoperable with Windows
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <2B3187EFB48B477183C355EDF9660136@W340> <1444436439.20180805170441@yandex.ru> <3AA6B0E5761945E58833642A6DB75341@W340>
From: Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <865cfe26-a3ca-e23f-0ffa-16f7db6a3dfb@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:49:30 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3AA6B0E5761945E58833642A6DB75341@W340>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2018-08-05 08:23, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Andrey Repin wrote:
>> Greetings, Stefan Kanthak!
>>> PS: <https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#pathnames-win32-api>
>>> too states bloody lies:
>>> | The Windows subsystem only supports CWD paths of up to 258 chars.
>> 260 including drive letter.
> WRONG, AGAIN!
> 260 is the value of MAX_PATH, which accounts for the trailing \0, and
> commonly used as
> | char buffer[MAX_PATH];
> I recommend to read
> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/fileio/naming-a-file>
> VERY careful!
>>> The Win32 API supports pathnames with up to 32767 (Unicode) characters; 
>>> this includes of course the CWD!
>> CWD may be, but command processor does not.
> Neither Cygwin's WRONG documentation nor I referred to the command processor.

Please feel free to provide, using your superior understanding, a detailed spec
for how POSIX ACLs and permissions should be implemented using Windows ACLs
while maintaining "canonical" ACL order.
Windows "canonical" order is preferred because it allows Windows to make short
cut assumptions to meet Windows' security policy objectives.
But MS do not enforce that order in the kernel ACL mechanism because they
recognize that other customers may have different security policy objectives
which may be better achieved using different ACLs and orders.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
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