X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 470BB3857C5F
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=emmenlauer.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mario AT emmenlauer DOT de
From: Mario Emmenlauer <mario AT emmenlauer DOT de>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <d05f79db-5574-d408-28ce-7840cddff7ec AT emmenlauer DOT de>
 <1279009444 DOT 20201006184606 AT yandex DOT ru>
 <c5adbabd-f6c1-7a09-2af2-fdd819b76cdf AT emmenlauer DOT de>
 <20201013183650 DOT GW26704 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <2820bfde-68f4-e2f9-78c4-4174423a6213 AT emmenlauer DOT de>
 <20201014082841 DOT GY26704 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <8afea014-6e68-01ef-f6c8-d947e820ec3a AT emmenlauer DOT de>
 <20201014115021 DOT GC26704 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
X-Tagtoolbar-Keys: D20201014165756324
Message-ID: <9e779a6f-288c-f9aa-615f-75f74192558a@emmenlauer.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:57:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201014115021.GC26704@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 213.160.25.97
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mario AT emmenlauer DOT de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, TXREP,
 T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Subject: Re: test -r or -x always return false on an NFS mount?
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:31:22 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on aldebaran.he1ix.org)
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>

On 14.10.20 13:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 14 11:06, Mario Emmenlauer wrote:
>> On 14.10.20 10:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Actually, not really.  It's weird in fact, given ls(1) shows the
>>> desired result.  That would point to a bug in access(2), but there's
>>> no special code in access(2) for NFS.  For filesystems not supporting
>>> ACLs (FAT, NFS, etc), it calls stat(2) and checks the st_mode bits
>>> against the requested access(2) mode based on the uid/gid of the
>>> caller, simple as that.
>>
>> Hmm, now that you mention it, I just coincidentally found an issue
>> with the `_stat` call in Microsoft Windows 2004 update. In the Apache
> 
> This is entirely unrelated.  We're talking about Cygwin stat(2),
> not msvcrt.dll _stat().  Different source, different call.

Yes, but Cygwin stat is implemented based on the Win32 posix layer too,
or not? At least I got this impression from browsing the sources -
albeit admittedly there are far too many indirections and ifdefs for
me to really know what's going on... :-) :-)

All the best,

    Mario
--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple