DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=AjS17kUYiKT04zHHEzcFaSUcN+7ydvIwf509r/4hXxHPy9kNz91kc
	vXkW+aL79MOwI/flAANSC34o2miI/tuIDQ8UMsznD+A5yEwsFGBZsixj4qvM2gsI
	1zpeHpF45gJSFhHzFW1wuUZfI1CoJO18CbdSuyUaHkb1uFn3TaWCtg=
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
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:28:36 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Too Many Permissions Stripped In 1.7.35?
Message-ID: <20150226202836.GB10024@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CADi7v6JajieaQGq3N5LY2Ck2m7SiOTci6au5t7RL4gxZdvBgEw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <87twy8cv4k DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87twy8cv4k.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 26 20:47, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Bryan Berns writes:
> > I honestly haven't read up exactly how Cygwin interprets NTFS
> > ACL/ACEs, but I remember seeing on the mailing list that a change was
> > made in 1.7.35 was made to permission handling.  It is preferable in
> > my organization that the SYSTEM account always have full control the
> > local file system.  When using chmod under 1.7.35, it looks like
> > permissions for SYSTEM get stripped (as well as some others).  Is this
> > the desired behavior?
>=20
> That's the latest attempt to make those tools conform more closely to
> POSIX semantics (which it actually does).  As you note, this is fine if
> that's your goal and undesired or even somewhat dangerous if you aren't
> aware of it and letting them lose on Windows' own files.  I have an
> inkling that (just like acl/noacl) this removal of ACL depending on
> which way you set the file modes should probably be an option to chose
> in the fstab for each mount listed there, especially if it works on bind
> mounts.  However, I'm not sure how much that would complicate the code
> and if it's realistic to expect that to be implemented soon.

That's not really a goal.  The SYSTEM permissions are kind of useless
anyway, given that SYSTEM has permissions to read and write all files
anyway.  I don't see that a rule to add SYSTEM permissions to all files
accomplishes anything which isn't already available anyway.


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=jF3F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eAbsdosE1cNLO4uF--