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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=JhIgHUQ5q1oWkTQwr6ZUaiTYdfCQWhpVNCCRmTdzr+OEQpqbMGKOJ
	8UQ79cFMKmt+z+2uqNxJ3UvmR/mu/j/oYN560mSVvIRwQtryK/qGl6JCmVx0JgvG
	KI/uLpmxOrPM4s1uV4UAYrdVizgTN3we1tAqGleOiWrOhnwWx4ab3c=
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:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	 bh=tq9lOkxdvZGbHq/6xIuGZTwSfdY=; b=i61fmsVsX3N3B51uoGo5PSx6Qki9
	kfj5hfCFXOPssvuzGDjU1fBKftI1P9Cy+pjU4GrxNO/UyPV70jDzv+KGoA2FB3AS
	d+Fa8UTFtteXlmvQcQ0ywph+rZkCyaEbD4Nm4ph2BYJlB9Ed90dlI2f9JcRqTNaR
	PCnK1V2cyiDLPRQ=
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=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: calimero.vinschen.de
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:53:23 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Making Cygwin More Tolerant of Orphaned SIDs?
Message-ID: <20150414145323.GH7343@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CADi7v6LUZhr6UVSYA+Fe27f-aWJcxVxUXb3vR02rVuW9cG3a6A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <loom DOT 20150414T085644-392 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20150414080044 DOT GB7343 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CADi7v6J=h7ydravvigVwMpT5P4QwMS1L73m1zhy==DtrL-SHhQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150414092313 DOT GE7343 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CADi7v6JVqPi9SE44CbfYfd-aWUd8w2=2Uu=2=BR6ZM6H9qDgqA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bJBxXK1kQfYiHILX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADi7v6JVqPi9SE44CbfYfd-aWUd8w2=2Uu=2=BR6ZM6H9qDgqA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--bJBxXK1kQfYiHILX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Apr 14 07:24, Bryan Berns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Corinna Vinschen
> >
> > The problem is that Cygwin, or any other tool trying to resolve SIDs
> > doesn't know a SID won't resolve before it tried.  And then it's an
> > OS function which takes its time.  It's like checking for network
> > machines providing shares.  Sometimes this test takes ages, but in
> > this case, fortunately, you see that it takes ages in Explorer as
> > well.
> >
> > As for ACLs, you can alleviate the problem somewhat by running cygserver
> > on the machine, which allows to cache SIDs for all processes.  So only
> > the first process trying the SID will take time, followup processes will
> > get the cached results from cygserver.
> >
> > Other than that, except for ignoring ACLs entirely (noacl) I have
> > no idea how to solve this problem differently.
>=20
> Yes, I understand there's nothing Cygwin can do beforehand -- that
> means sense.  I guess what I'm saying is that Cygwin doesn't appear to
> be caching SIDs in certain scenarios.
>=20
> For example, I create a whole bunch of files (like 5000),  I use
> icacls to append a new ACE.  Then I do a 'time ls -l
> /cygdrive/c/somedir/*'.  Takes four seconds.  In the same Cygwin
> session, I remove the local group (net localgroup testgroup /delete).
>  I do the same 'time ls -l /cygdrive/c/somedir/*'.  Takes 20 seconds.
> Subsequent runs in the also take 20 seconds.  Since I'm able to
> continue to see the slowdown in the same session, cygserver wouldn't
> help right?
>=20
> Is the above expected?

Yes.  Without cygserver, caching only works from parent to child process.
One run of ls can't cache data for a parallel run of ls in trhe same
session.  As, btw., explained in the documentation:

  https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html


Corinna

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

--bJBxXK1kQfYiHILX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=7pgg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bJBxXK1kQfYiHILX--