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=nfBNiHkoM+ijKNpIMoC0tYqus0mZtOn5QBJ4cT8+4RM
	CfszttMtPpzDoSJShX/M4KH4StaIpCp6XLJryg0ujudNZEnj6axtUlwTuwzrvGo1
	jyeNURateE2WJkwyadfxmJdtnESsZxIgJSYh4mIRxunvSpn+YTKUQrsAptyJ2Zz0
	=
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=pKoabCEweNpP4+WXpE24FcObAf4=; b=OF0YmH5+NKvYIDveX
	6RSCLR2mJb6mLi2BdYQKv17rpYiTZKOOExdNi6CdlIgR4DW9Dp22VfeUDVq7qJpw
	3MR3AKnTopCyeIrK/0Omsl41G/lJGnG/AYV9LtXgOLynrR6O3G2J1fxcvcMN7E36
	MKeAU1OGlcagxgeNMbA+64WlsY=
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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO: limerock03.mail.cornell.edu
X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already.
Message-ID: <5400C19D.4070408@cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:08:29 -0400
From: Ken Brown <kbrown AT cornell DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: (call-process ...) hangs in emacs
References: <87wq9v9j2y DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <53FD0662 DOT 5050208 AT cornell DOT edu> <20140827084245 DOT GD20700 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <53FDD4A8 DOT 5050401 AT cornell DOT edu> <loom DOT 20140827T170804-533 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20140828T085927-71 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20140828095524 DOT GO20700 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20140828131832 DOT GT20700 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20140828T172529-396 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20140829T115632-276 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20140829110938 DOT GD20700 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20140829110938.GD20700@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 8/29/2014 7:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 29 09:58, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Achim Gratz <Stromeko <at> NexGo.DE> writes:
>>>> Please test.
>>>
>>> This fixes the "read-only" problem in Emacs (so that hunch was correct).
>>> Perl still doesn't play, but I think the 5.18 version should get it correct.
>>> Will need to switch a test installation over for that, though.
>>
>> With that snapshot in place, ssh suddenly recognized that my private key
>> file was more readable than it liked it to be, so it looks that it's using
>> the same general strategy of dealing with ACL as Emacs.
>
> ...which means, they don't deal with ACLs at all.  They only see what's
> given in the st_mode permission bits.  With this change, the group
> permission bits now show that *somebody* has certain permissions on the
> file, thus the group permissions indicate a too open access for ssh, if
> somebody except you have write access to the file.
>
> Downside: If you use inherited Windows permissions, you'll often have
> the case that Administrators and/or SYSTEM have full access to your
> files.  This in turn shows up as rwx group permissions now.  If you
> can't change the permissions (company requirements, etc) the ssh key
> file permission test will get annoying.
>
> So it's probably a very nice change (thanks a lot for bringing this up!),
> but it will probably have some negative side-effects for existing
> installations.
>
>> I'm starting to
>> like this patch very much... :-)
>
> Despite of what I'm outlining above, me too :)

With the latest snapshot I can't start the sshd service.  The 
Application Log just says, "`sshd' service stopped, exit status:255". 
The problem doesn't occur with the 2014-08-27 snapshot.  I guess this 
has something to do with the new permissions on various files, but I'm 
not sure which ones.

Ken


--
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