Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20021022210518.008282a0@mail.attbi.com>
X-Sender: phumblet AT mail DOT attbi DOT com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:05:18 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
Subject: Shell scripts [was Re: Avoiding /etc/passwd and /etc/group
  scans]
In-Reply-To: <20021022213330.GK6429@redhat.com>
References: <3DB5C3C4 DOT F57CE7B0 AT ieee DOT org>
 <3DB58CBD DOT 87B2BDD8 AT ieee DOT org>
 <20021022181947 DOT GA4729 AT redhat DOT com>
 <3DB5A076 DOT ABAFF076 AT ieee DOT org>
 <20021022191217 DOT GD4828 AT redhat DOT com>
 <3DB5AB53 DOT B434ED90 AT ieee DOT org>
 <20021022202004 DOT GA6995 AT redhat DOT com>
 <20021022203300 DOT GC6429 AT redhat DOT com>
 <3DB5BC04 DOT CD6587CB AT ieee DOT org>
 <20021022212028 DOT GG6429 AT redhat DOT com>
 <3DB5C3C4 DOT F57CE7B0 AT ieee DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 05:33 PM 10/22/2002 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>About the shell scripts, I will look at your patch tonight.

Chris

All your changes in fhandler_disk_file.cc are in the branch 
with get_file_attribute () != 0,
Thus they do not apply to successful calls with ntsec.
In fact they apply mainly to nontsec.
What did you try to change in that case?

>>Why do you want to be different from regular Unix and report x
>>just because the file starts with #! ?
>>Why not force the user to chmod +x the scripts, for them to be
>>executable?
>
>I am just trying to minimize the impact on users.  For purity sake,
>I'd rather leave things as they were, actually.
>
OK, it would be very disturbing to change the behavior of scripts
and suddenly force them to have an ACL allowing execution in order
to execute them. 
But what needs to be changed in the mode display? 
Actually I would also rather leave things as they were!

At first I was afraid you would always show x for scripts, even when 
ntsec is on. IMHO this would be a bad idea. For example chmod would start
behaving unexpectedly.

Pierre