Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:35:05 -0400
To: "cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin-developers AT hotpop DOT com>
Subject: Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
Message-ID: <20000524153505.C5043@cygnus.com>
Mail-Followup-To: "cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin-developers AT hotpop DOT com>
References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20000524132333 DOT 00e5d910 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <392C173E DOT 704F5DCD AT vinschen DOT de> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20000524140935 DOT 00e4e510 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20000524141933 DOT A4308 AT cygnus DOT com> <392C242A DOT 52452785 AT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <392C242A.52452785@vinschen.de>; from corinna@vinschen.de on Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0200



On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:49:14PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>Chris Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> >I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the
>> >writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
>> >it is.  Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
>> >but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec.  If this
>> >is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
>> >view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory.  Did I miss
>> >some important point?
>> 
>> I think that I agree with Corinna.  I've always had reservations about
>> this call, too.  It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
>> cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.
>> 
>> I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
>> eliminated.  If people start noticing problems then we can always put
>> it back.
>
>I want to suggest that I change the function to return always `TRUE'.
>The actual code can be preserved by a `#if 0' directive for a
>later (ab)use or until we decide to remove it completely.

Ok.

cgf