Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000621103837.01d65ab0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:48:40 -0400
To: "John Pollock" <jpollock AT curl DOT com>,
        "Terry Lincoln" <lincoln2 AT rochester DOT rr DOT com>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: RE: weird hanging problems with cygwin v1.1.2
Cc: "cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin AT hotpop DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <NDBBLJCKJNIBKAHNBFDLKEAJCGAA.jpollock@curl.com>
References: <064b01bfd7f9$c45cae20$032c1818 AT rochester DOT rr DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



At 10:35 AM 6/21/2000, John Pollock wrote:

> >Corinna had added code to enable NT security and it required that
> >the security authority provide credentials on the user that was
> >logged in for permission setting.
>
> >IIRC, she fixed it so that the information was cached after the
> >first request.  But ICBW :-)
>
>That would make some sense with what i saw.  I definitely saw some caching
>behavior; the problem that the behavior wasn't consistent.  I'd run "ls" and
>get a massive delay, and then it would be quick for a few times in a row,
>then it would slow down again.  Maybe the cache expires too quickly?
>
>I'm still not clear, though, on why NT security is needed in any way
>different from before.  I mean, in the past, ls would have to check the NTFS
>permissions to see if the user had rights, so what's changed?
>
>Thanks for the comments!
>John



Check some messages ago from Corinna on this subject (maybe it was on the
developers list?).  As I understood it, there was some ntsec specific code of 
hers that was getting invoked regardless of whether the option was set or 
not.  Assuming you don't set ntsec in your CYGWIN environment variable and 
that the offending code does not execute in this mode, you should see no 
performance degradation as a result of security (because it won't be 
executed).  Corinna's changes have attempted to make correct use of NTFS security attributes so that Cygwin can interact properly with them.  Some of 
this requires understanding information that may be domain specific.  This is 
why the use of ntsec may have more initial overhead.  Last I heard, Corinna 
was looking at these issues too.  Those who want better security features in
Cygwin and a better marrying of NT security model with traditional *NIX style
permissions are getting a big boost from Corinna's changes!





Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com