DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=
	default; b=xfW2ae0J5gt6fsbicYkeQpA6CseJsfl52+Frg/A9UUsS+y7lyTk3n
	59vwp0E/MuuP68EkGSO2Awm7E1eKKWfib004lQMwuebk6Y/H1UTghu39sMl/HO8/
	cobuuFUUuNH7TEA+hy3yPKjj44ybzjY0KiNAVrbYI24zYL1wPsGfjQ=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "D. Boland" <daniel AT boland DOT nl>
Subject: Re: vi stealing SYSTEM-owned permissions and ownership
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 06:49:54 +0100
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <52788702.B100AA7A@boland.nl>
References: <5274F396 DOT A133C4CE AT boland DOT nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks for the input, guys.

I think I have new information on the stealing of ownership. Below test has been
performed on the Apache folder, placed in the Windows Program Files folder by the
Apache msi installer:

"/cygdrive/c/Program Files (x86)/Apache Group/Apache2/"

But if I perform the same test in my Cygwin home directory, vi behaves beautifully.

So, I was thinking this difference must be related to the Windows ACL assigments on
the "Program Files" folder.
Maybe vi is confused within this folder, because it is a system folder which
recursively forces extra permissions on its subfolders.

This means I could solve the issue by telling the Apache installer to put the files
in a "neutral" folder, like:

/cygdrive/c/apache/

But then the question would stay, nagging in my mind: why would vi be confused and
nano (and notepad.exe by the way) not? 

Also, Larry Hall pointed out:

"When I looked at the information provided, I was left with the distinct impression
that the 'vi' in use was not a Cygwin version.  The fact that the file edited with
it had no POSIX permissions was a red flag for me."

I initially used the original version of "vi" that came with the standard distro of
Cygwin. When I noticed the problem, I installed "vim" and went on, testing with
that.

I really, really would like to persue this issue some more in the direction Larry
points to.

Cincerely,
Daniel


"D. Boland" wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, I accidentally found sort of a solution: deleting the file without write
> permissions on the containing folder, restores the permissions set by Administrator.
> 
> As Administrator:
> chmod 0700 .
> touch test.txt
> chown SYSTEM:apache test.txt
> chmod 0770 test.txt
> 
> Results in:
> 
> -rwxrwx---+ 1 SYSTEM apache     0  2 nov 13:26 test.txt
> 
> As "normal" user:
> Edit the file with vi. After, permissions will look like:
> 
> ----------+ 1 Daniel None       9  2 nov 13:29 test.txt
> 
> $ getfacl.exe test.txt
> # file: test.txt
> # owner: Daniel
> # group: None
> user::---
> group::---
> group:SYSTEM:rwx
> group:Administrators:rwx
> group:Gebruikers:r-x
> group:apache:rwx
> mask:rwx
> other:---
> 
> To "solve" this, simply delete the file:
> 
> rm test.txt
> 
> The file is not deleted because of 0700 on the containing folder. But the original
> permissions, set by Admin are restored!!
> 
> -rwxrwx---+ 1 SYSTEM apache     9  2 nov 13:29 test.txt
> 
> $ getfacl.exe test.txt
> # file: test.txt
> # owner: SYSTEM
> # group: apache
> user::rwx
> group::rwx
> group:Administrators:rwx
> group:Gebruikers:r-x
> mask:rwx
> other:---


--
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