X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Nahor Subject: Re: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7 Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:25:21 -0700 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <20090806142010 DOT GE3204 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090806180441 DOT GB19829 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) In-Reply-To: <20090806180441.GB19829@calimero.vinschen.de> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 6 10:50, Nahor wrote: > >> One weird thing though, the directory permission are 700 and yet I can >> list the content of the directory, cd in it and add/delete files. So >> permissions are not consistently checked. But then, I assume it's >> because all that is done by Windows/Samba while the permission check on >> the script is done by Cygwin? Same thing with executing binary (I was >> able to execute a binary file copied on the share even though I couldn't >> execute scripts)? >> > Most of Cygwin relys on the permission checks of the underlying OS. > In case of scripts, that's not possible. Therefore it has to check > script permissions explicitely. Note that it doesn't do a simple > POSIX permission bit check, rather it calls an OS function asking > "does *this* account have the right to execute *that* file?" That > should result in the most consistent behaviour, as far as Windows > consistency goes. > Cygwin can't also check with an account with the same login and password? I assume that's what Windows does and why I'm allowed, as a user LOCAL\nahor, to access the share that belongs exclusively to the user DOMAIN\nahor. Nahor -- 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