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:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=St5oAtRm/82W05Gv
	B+wrHzEvy+DC+7VE8/aEj/yzxc9VCYqJZV8MgVykQnGhv2KJDJmVwvzWArmT9Zvj
	PzcbtVsQDuEy2uwd69EAxdHIHW0Av+40r3hBpY2hldLs+Zi0NjRWPvSTbyZqdE1U
	s8osek+3B739en2/4GUasMwAxqc=
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
Message-id: <549A37B4.3020200@cygwin.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:49:08 -0500
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 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RFD: cygwin ACLs: NFS or POSIX model: ease in adapting to CIFS ACLs?
References: <549756D2 DOT 8000600 AT tlinx DOT org>
In-reply-to: <549756D2.8000600@tlinx.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 12/21/2014 06:25 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I seem to remember that the cygwin ACL's were based on NFS acls not
> the POSIX ACL's.  From this snippet I read on the Samba list,
> it seems there are some "very difficult" [nightmarish] cases
> where NFS causes CIFS compatibility problems.  Is this only
> NFSv4 (does cygwin model v4 or v3?) that had these problems?
> Would it simplify anything for cygwin to be using POSIX
> acl's -- in so much that those seem to be more
> str8forward in functionality mapping?
>
> I know nothing about NFS ACL's or how they are different from POSIX ACL's,
> but wondered also if code in the linux kernel or samba projects might have
> any useful bits to use in cygwin only from the basis of what this
> person states about their compatibility?
>
> It may also be this is a dead issue without someone to do the work, but
> am just wondering if it is, in any fixes or enhancements to the Cygwin ACL
> work something that might be good to consider as a direction for either,
> new or maintenance (or both) work?
>
> Just seems like code in samba that presents a CIFS UI/API
> to the 'user' from a POSIX ACL UI/API backend,  might have
> some similarities between cygwin code using CIFS to talk to
> the OS and presenting a POSIX ACL UI/API to the 'user'?

I can't speak to the specific issues you're raising or shed any light
on whether they are actually issues with Cygwin.  As far as the Cygwin
implementation is concerned, I believe the links below shed some light
on the original implementation and the direction things are heading.
At this time, the first link still refers to a test version of the
Cygwin package, though the version number is different.

<https://www.marshut.net/kqrriw/test-release-cygwin-1-7-33-1.html>
<https://cygwin.com/preliminary-ug/ntsec.html>

Hope this helps.


-- 
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