X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject
	:from:to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=
	dns; s=default; b=fWhRBeOup5gyc5HYwaXSXYRRHOYYa17JAFT8lay0K5xQRX
	YpbLHuFFLw54yu/yZLdGXoWhABYh/GyoNi0vur289OT29mP08xaMt7kK94U3SrA4
	UDJroBCQGCzZKhpNBsCJMKFbIAVpqN00ch1dwmLqxFBkyU8zo+4dqaxw1iR0U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:subject
	:from:to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=
	default; bh=D5EYpA1lLHjMmVRZlQdm+U1SnvE=; b=yvfZSti8ZQ04qB6o51qQ
	SStM5Is+uaeSFoKQEtx5M3l2lybsWDd1zKkN6NhNP+tBOczaJLeaXC4xUiUXPG18
	mQn033YMJVpAIk0ZejWpDuy8+3qvF9EW1zY/gvtlcGK2XC3ZAi3HWjEiLVqUqGhO
	feZbOkn/nRTbmEqH0iO3VBg=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtp-vbr10.xs4all.nl
Message-ID: <e810475fd35402d75b1b6341f764991e.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <536E339A.6030200@breisch.org>
References: <849f1f5420ebf77d7a591d6c9b6bfa4b DOT squirrel AT webmail DOT xs4all DOT nl>    <536E339A DOT 6030200 AT breisch DOT org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:05:35 +0200
Subject: Re: Baffled: is it Cygwin (64-bits) or Windows that causes the   invocation of regedit (from bash) to fail?
From: "Houder" <houder AT xs4all DOT nl>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

>> At my place I have installed both versions of Cygwin (i.e. 32-bits and 64-bits) -- of course,
>> in different places.  As "some" of you will have the "same" setup, I would like you to confirm
>> the following (UNexpected, to me) result:
>>
>>   - I canNOT invoke regedit from 64-bits bash (Yes, I can if bash has been invoked in ELEVATED mode)
>>   - I can invoke regedit from 64-bits bash (not elevated) as follows: cygstart regedit
>>   - however, I can invoke regedit from 32-bits bash (not elevated) ...
>>   - likewise, I can invoke regedit from 64-bits cmd (not elevated) ...
>>
>> By UNexpected result I mean: I cannot explain why I canNOT invoke regedit from 64-bits bash ...
> [snip]
>
>> E:\Cygwin64\bin\bash: /drv/c/WINDOWS/regedit: Permission denied
>
> I can not duplicate your behavior. I can not invoke regedit from any
> non-elevated bash prompt, regardless of whether it is 32-bit or 64-bit.
> I get the above error in both cases.

Hi Chris,

Once more, thank you for your input!

Your system shows indeed the "correct" behaviour :-)

On my system the key

    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AppCompatFlags\Layers

had a field e:\Cygwin\bin\bash.exe that read ELEVATECREATEPROCESS

Once the field had been deleted, I got the same behaviour as you did.

(do not ask me how the field with THAT value got there -- I simply do not know)

Henri


--
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