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:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=d4oMq9NdQB0X7sfp
	GZ5HMJL2RmUwKzeD0Vk8OFydu5K1NQU3lAWU7jLgdy17Z+ZfhWfp494IDy2v9Inz
	gPsslf0CCZxo086+Wr+wpegVvLzDqbBPFukHUfi3Tb6JW8E2YjgSeN+eBdICTMgE
	OtUU2/reYuY1403AqP81tnA4JMM=
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:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=vg9DHk2GbWe+AXWg3Drg/b
	nj4Nk=; b=Yx1bmaAzj6QcZMYgBJ2ojSy6h5qDPxbil5FhANUA+3zYg58lF8gOUa
	wpa6wahjWkV7f+tCsIHpt3vxpAmviooTX7mG18fSoDqGQ8hqoolxp1aaGlcL5teI
	AdfUUyo74W6NFAuHBD9vzDjP4mn3AuvoKNexBQGBzfZXLbBoAIeKY=
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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*UA:Bat!, H*x:Bat!, H*UA:Home, H*x:Home
X-HELO: forward3o.cmail.yandex.net
Authentication-Results: smtp4o.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru
X-Yandex-Suid-Status: 1 0,1 0
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:23:24 +0300
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <1945820393.20160627122324@yandex.ru>
To: Bill Zissimopoulos <billziss AT navimatics DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: POSIX permission mapping and NULL SIDs
In-Reply-To: <D39583E5.96E3%billziss@navimatics.com>
References: <D392BA70.95D4%billziss AT navimatics DOT com>   <20160624195144 DOT GB27089 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <D392F074.962E%billziss AT navimatics DOT com>  <20160624215948 DOT GD27089 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <D39583E5.96E3%billziss AT navimatics DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id u5R9Zdt3024488

Greetings, Bill Zissimopoulos!

>>> The main reason that I am weary of using an unused SID is that Microsoft
>>> may decide to assign some special powers to it in a future release (e.g.
>>> GodMode SID). But I agree that this is rather unlikely in the S-1-0-X
>>> namespace.
>>
>>I think it's very unlikely.  We could chose any RID value we like and
>>the chance for collision is nil.  When I created the new implementation
>>for POSIX ACLs, I toyed around with this already and used a special
>>Cygwin SID within the NULL SID AUTHORITY.  I'm not entirely sure why I
>>changed this to the NULL SID deny ACE.  I think I disliked the fact that
>>almost every Cygwin ACL would contain a mysterious "unknown SID".

> Ideally we should choose a SID that:

> (1) Is very unlikely to be used by Microsoft at any point in the future.
> (2) Cannot be associated to a user logon for any reason (see problem with
> Anonymous SID) above.
> (3) Maps to a reasonable UID in Cygwin.

> I propose the following SID/UID mapping:

>     S-1-0-99 <=> UID 0xffffffff (32-bit -1)

Why not S-1-0-65535 ? It'll map to 0x1FFFF then without any special rules.

> This is a SID in the S-1-0 (Null Authority) namespace (same one that
> contains the NULL SID), which is unlikely to be used by Microsoft. So it
> likely satisfies (1).

> For the same reason (that it is a new/unused SID in the S-1-0) namespace,
> I think it also satisfies (2).

> If we follow the rules from Cygwin’s "POSIX accounts, permission, and
> security” document [IDMAP], the SID S-1-0-99 maps to 0x10063. But we can
> make a special rule for this SID to map it to a different UID. Mapping it
> to -1 may be the easiest option, but perhaps we can also consider mapping
> it to 0xfffffffe (-2).

> Bill

> [IDMAP] https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html



-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Monday, June 27, 2016 12:08:13

Sorry for my terrible english...