X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:50:22 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 1.7.1-1 noacl on samba share has incorrect directory write bit Message-ID: <20100107195022.GQ23972@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4B454550 DOT 9020806 AT fastmail DOT fm> <4B454E96 DOT 7060009 AT cygwin DOT com> <4B45739C DOT 4060807 AT fastmail DOT fm> <20100107180214 DOT GP23972 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4B462AFD DOT 8030809 AT fastmail DOT fm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B462AFD.8030809@fastmail.fm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 On Jan 7 13:42, Raman Gupta wrote: > On 01/07/2010 01:02 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 7 00:39, Raman Gupta wrote: > >>"Cygwin ignores filesystem ACLs and only fakes a subset of > >>permission bits based on the DOS readonly attribute" > > > >No, it's a bit more tricky. FAT filesystems, which are the role model > >for noacl filesystems don't know something like a R/O directory. The > >DOS R/O bit on a directory does NOT mean the directory is R/O. Rather, > >it only means that the folder is some sort of special folder. For some > >better description, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/326549. > > Wow, isn't that just like Microsoft to reuse an existing read-only > bit for something that is completely different semantically! > > In any case, note that the KB article says that attrib *can* be used > to see and modify the value -- as I demonstrated in my previous > email. Sure. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. While you can set and reset the R/O bit on a dir, it doesn't have the *meaning* of the directory being R/O. If Cygwin reports such a directory as being read-only from the POSIX perspective, certain functions would have strange ideas and return EACCES, for instance. > >Therefore the fault is not on Cygwin's side, but on Samba's side to use > >the DOS R/O bit for something different than Windows uses it on > >directories. > > Understood. However, while Samba's use of the read-only bit on > directories does differ somewhat from what Windows Explorer expects > to use that bit for, it is a valid field and it does provide useful > information to the client in the case of noacl Samba mounts. > > Therefore, what would you think about configuring this via a mount > option? For example, a per-mount setting called dro/nodro (directory That's not the right thing to do, IMHO. That's what the default "acl" mount mode is for. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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