Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:41:32 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, bug-coreutils AT gnu DOT org
Subject: Re: ls when acl() is busy
Message-ID: <20050630084132.GA5026@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, bug-coreutils AT gnu DOT org
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, bug-coreutils AT gnu DOT org
References: <062820050324 DOT 16993 DOT 42C0C2EB00001A5B0000426122007610640A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net> <85slz0dztf DOT fsf AT pi DOT meyering DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <85slz0dztf.fsf@pi.meyering.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Jun 30 10:16, Jim Meyering wrote:
> ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake) wrote:
> ...
> > Hmm - murky waters here.  It would be a simple one-line fix to
> > coreutils/lib/acl.c to ignore EBUSY as a non-error, and POSIX has
> > no requirements per se that a failure of acl() should imply a failure
> > of ls(1).  Should a busy file be conservatively treated as having an
> > ACL (designated with '+' in the mode string) or left alone without
> 
> If acl failing with EBUSY is a reliable indicator that there is
> indeed an ACL, then using the `+' mark sounds best.

No, it's not a reliable indicator.  Let me explain.

Windows (resp. the NTFS filesystem) is always using ACLs.  The Cygwin
implementation of POSIX permissions utilizes the owner/group/everyone
ACL entries for the POSIX permissions bits. 

If only these owner/group/everyone ACL entries are present, then acl()
returns with MIN_ACL_ENTRIES which indicates that only POSIX permissions
are present and ls does not print the '+'.  If more ACL entries are
present, the number returned by acl() is > MIN_ACL_ENTRIES and ls prints
a '+'.

When a file is exclusivly locked by another application, then the
access to the ACL is entirely impossible.  So we don't know anything
about the actual ACL.  Cygwin's stat() returns with the POSIX permission
bits set to 000 in this case (which is still somewhat unfortunate, but
at least reflects the current situation from the processes' perspective).

So in some way the '+' is as wrong as the ' ', because we just don't
know.  I understand Eric's idea of adding a '?' indicator for this
case, I just don't think it really helps the user.

Whatever the result of this discussion is, the most important part is,
that the failing call to acl() shouldn't result in ls printing an error
message in this case.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/