X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:09:46 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.7.1-1 noacl on samba share has incorrect directory write bit
Message-ID: <20100107200946.GR23972@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>  <20100107195022 DOT GQ23972 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <4B463D68 DOT 1070906 AT fastmail DOT fm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B463D68.1070906@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: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Jan  7 15:00, Raman Gupta wrote:
> On 01/07/2010 02:50 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jan  7 13:42, Raman Gupta wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> In the case I am speaking of (a Samba share using the default
> settings), the functions *should* return EACCES, since on the
> server-side the directory is indeed non-writable.

I'm talking about the other case.  The DOS R/O flag has nothing to do
with writability of a directory in the first place.  If we treat a
directory as non-writable just because the DOS R/O flag is set, we're
making a mistake with consequences.  The consequences in the opposite
case are much less problematic.


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