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:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=IZMqnqsjd3Z1yN0Y+xJRI2GK9zo7NaFyBNysVKbv/44 VnKN8EiDY6sIeB03FdgN5FLVlAoJ0QCKR2KgwacrPbvgz26NL+lYn+hWSUYAeJYx B2Sqg3TfaJ1+Aa3Say+IZMxvU6MQTtg/GDjo9f2WTPnAU7+EB73z/GTbqLWmMGw0 = 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:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=FWWrzYjeCyV+Y52DzZ5TJrmNWIg=; b=smcTEQv9tFzM257uS vNY2sh4KlEqw+3ukaT9HHTYyBU+leC7QPE5yurmxiSK0F82ZrJ35W2kDw/HJcXPW QJB1hiieiTMTtgOIp2px7YY9hWoSj6oHE2mzk97+1YW4VYhbPJ3975vL71wH8F/Q XRgjuUkmoMyp1BzePbW9qw/n+E= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: postman.abacus.ch Message-ID: <53D90F4B.6060002@abacus.ch> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:29:15 +0200 From: Wolf Geldmacher User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Simplify AD integration? References: <20140730134716 DOT GM25860 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20140730134716.GM25860@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes On 30.07.2014 15:47, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi folks, > > > here's a set of question to those of you interested in the new > passwd/group functionality. This already has been discussed partially, > but there was no conclusion. > > Right now, there's a lot of variability in the user names, based on the > /etc/nsswitch.conf settings db_prefix and db_separator. > > The separator char is a '+' by default but can be replaced with other > ASCII chars. db_prefix allows three styles of user naming conventions: > > Default is 'auto': > > builtin accounts; "+SYSTEM", "+LOCAL", etc. > primary domain "corinna", "cgf", ... > other domain: "DOMAIN1+walter", "DOMAIN2+mathilda" > > If set to 'primary': > > builtin accounts; "+SYSTEM", "+LOCAL", etc. > primary domain "MYDOMAIN+corinna", "MYDOMAIN+cgf", ... > other domain: "DOMAIN1+walter", "DOMAIN2+mathilda" > > If set to 'always': > > builtin accounts; "NT AUTHORITY+SYSTEM", "BULTIN+LOCAL", etc. > primary domain "MYDOMAIN+corinna", "MYDOMAIN+cgf", ... > other domain: "DOMAIN1+walter", "DOMAIN2+mathilda" > > "Primary domain" here is either the primary domain of the machine or the > local SAM if the machine is no domain member. "Other domain" here is > either a trusted domain or the local SAM for domain machines. > > Together with the variable separator char this is an awful lot of > variability, which has the potential side effect to complicate the > code *and* debugging. > > Also, the leading '+' for builtin accounts results in some downsides, > one of them for instance the fact that `chown +x' assumes that x is a > numerical uid or gid. Thus `chown +SYSTEM ...' fails. On the other > hand it simplifies the account handling inside of Cygwin. > > So I'd like to ask a few questions to which I'd like to have some brief > answers, kind of like a poll, to get a better idea how we should > proceed: > > 1. Shall we remove the leading '+' from the builtin account names > or shall we keep it? > > 2. Shall we stick to '+' as the separator char or choose another one? > If so, which one? > > 3. Shall we keep the `db_prefix' variability or choose one of > the prefixing methods and stick to it? If so, which one, auto, > primary, or always? > > Bonus question: > > 4. Should Cygwin downcase all usernames when generating the Cygwin > username, so, if your Windows username is 'Ralph', your Cygwin > username will be 'ralph'? > > > Thanks, > Corinna > Just a thought: Is there anything preventing you from using the pathname conventions for user names? I seem to remember having seen constructs like "domain/user" (or ./user for the local domain) e.g. in Samba and found this to be quite intuitive, up to and including the ability to drop a leading "./" for local names. It is also pretty close to how Windows specifies domain users names (but use the unixy '/' instead of the windozy '\' (or must I write '\\' ;-)) and positively avoids the chown gotcha. Also some code could be reused for user name handling from path canonicalization? Again - I'm not deep into this topic, so please feel free to ignore the suggestion if it doesn't make sense to you. Cheers, Wolf -- 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