X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-id: <4F936CEA.8090202@cygwin.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:28:58 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why /usr/bin/*.dll must be executable?
References: <4F915E65 DOT 8070608 AT gmail DOT com> <CAKw7uVjf6kt2O=u4EB4xDGgF5wCvqRmtO6v_bc51R7Qj2RFZLw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4F918C2A DOT 2080300 AT gmail DOT com> <20120420162718 DOT GK22155 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4F919DA6 DOT 7000700 AT gmail DOT com> <4F919F9C DOT 1080307 AT cygwin DOT com> <4F91A11C DOT 5000300 AT gmail DOT com> <4F91A392 DOT 7070108 AT cygwin DOT com> <4F91A912 DOT 9000103 AT gmail DOT com> <4F91DEBA DOT 9030903 AT gmail DOT com>
In-reply-to: <4F91DEBA.9030903@gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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 4/20/2012 6:10 PM, Mike Kaganski wrote:
<snip>

> Any code that may be executed (directly or indirectly) must have "x" under
> *nix. Windows had tried to make somewhat similar (with the same security
> concerns in mind) in its NT family, but it had to deal with file systems
> that have no notion of "executability" (FAT), so the notion was introduced
> in NTFS, but is not honored (thus, "execute" ACL permission is useless in
> Windows).

Huh?  It is honored on NTFS.  I'm assuming that's what you meant.

> As Cygwin tries to emulate *nix, I suppose, it explicitly checks executable
> bit on loading files. So it's not correct to state that "this is completely
> Windows loader thing", but this thing is conceptually correct, so live with it.

As I said before, Cygwin doesn't run executables.  Cygwin is not an O/S.
Windows is the O/S.  It has the job of running executables, loading them,
following any dependencies (DLLs), and loading those.  While Cygwin does
emulate POSIX permissions using Windows ACE/ACLs, it is up to Windows to
enforce these permissions.  But setting permissions is not the same as
having some control over the loading executables.  Sorry.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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