This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ACL inheritance problem


On Nov  1 16:07, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin Developers)" 
> | On 10/30/2009 03:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> | > On Oct 30 14:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> | >> 4. Re-enable (I disabled this code back in February) the code which
> | >>     always creates directories with inherit-only CREATOR OWNER and
> | >>     CREATOR GROUP entries.  That means, if I create a file in such a
> | >>     directory, it will create default owner/group entries since the
> | >>     parent directory has inheritable permissions.  The default DACL is no
> | >>     problem anymore.  Native Win32 processes will create files using the
> | >>     same inherited permissions.
> | >>
> | >>     Drawbacks:
> | >>     - As in 1.5 times, directories are always created with extra ACEs,
> | >>       so every directory has a '+' in the `ls -l' output.
> | >>     - This only helps for newly created directories.  Creating files
> | >>       in existing directories will continue to suffer from the described
> | >>       problem.
> | >>     - setup-1.7.exe would have to be changed as well, since right now
> | >>       it creates plain, non-inheritable POSIX permissions for directories.
> | >>
> | >> I'm a bit at a loss to decide what's the best solution.  I'm leaning to
> | >> solution 2 because it's the least extra processing.  OTOH, it's probably
> | >> not really nice to shrug away native Win32 processes, so maybe
> | >> additionally re-enabling the Cygwin part of solution 4 would produce
> | >> less trouble in the long run.
> | >
> | > I've applied a patch to implement #2 above.  I'd still be interested
> | > if anybody thinks it's a good idea to re-enable the #4 code and, maybe,
> | > to tweak setup to generated inheritable CREATOR OWNER and CREATOR GROUP
> | > entries to be more friendly to Win32 applications.  Not even Interix is
> | > doing that, but they can excuse themselves by being their own POSIX
> | > subsystem rather than running in the Win32 subsystem.
> | 
> | I still like the idea of #4, if we're voting. :-)
> 
> Same here.

Why?

Don't get me wrong, but I would really like to *discuss* this rather
than just have some arbitrary opinion.  It's an easy change, but I'm
really curious if we really need it.  After all, I disabled this back in
February, and nobody seem to have noticed it.  Cygwin applications
won't care anyway, so it's a pure curtesy to non-Cygwin processes.

So, again the simple question.

Why?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]