Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com X-Authentication-Warning: pcatlas112.cern.ch: lat owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:03:17 +0100 (CET) From: "Lassi A. Tuura" Sender: lat AT pcatlas112 DOT cern DOT ch Reply-To: "Lassi A. Tuura" To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" cc: Sebastien Barre , cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: [HELP] stat(), file permission, r/w access : i'm LOST :( In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990301174320.0098ad30@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: |> Fixing the bug in the source is also possible. I know Corinna has been |> doing some work with making permissions track more closely with UNIX style. |> I'm not sure whether his changes will help in this arena... If somebody is going to fix this, I would strongly encourage to fix it in a way that uses `access' to determine file permissions, not something based on `stat'. This would have the benefit of making things work on the AFS filesystem as well, where using getuid and st_uid (or similar) to determine accessibility is meaningless: AFS uses ACLs and tokens that determine access rights, and the application has no way to know either of these unless it links against the AFS/Kerberos libraries. Please make the scheme trust the operating system (or network file system deamons), and not to build additional logic that fails with ACL-based systems. For example, GNU test program has this bug -- it depends on `stat' instead of `access'. Presumably Win32 system calls responds like AFS with ACLs -- call the right function (`access'?) and it will tell you whether you can access the file or not. Alternatively, `stat' should use the security API to fill in the st_mode fields correctly, but I am not sure this will work with networked file systems that implement their own security rules. Cheers, //lat -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. --RFC1925, "The Twelve Networking Truths" -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com