Re: Permissions change concern

[Eliot Moss <moss at cs dot umass dot edu>]

On 4/18/2016 6:18 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 16 22:17, Eliot Moss wrote:
> > Dear Corinna (et al.):  I have set up to use a separate group that I call
> > Cygwin for files in my cygwin tree, and in the recent past have been able to
> > apply chown, chgrp, and chmod effectively.  With the latest version, chmod
> > fails to change permissions, though I can change them with setfacl (a pain).
> > [...]
> > The specific behavior I get is that chmod 644 on the file has no
> > effect on the file's permissions - they stay at 774.
> >
> > So, has something in cygwin "broken", or is there some setting I
> > should be doing a different way?
>
> It's broken.  I added a small code snippet in 2.5.0 which was supposed
> to avoid writing a NULL SID ACE in case the POSIX permissions are simple
> enough.  The condition under which to write the NULL SID ACE was...
> uhm... not well thought through.
>
> I applied a fix and I built new developer snapshots available on
> https://cygwin.com/snapshots/.
>
> Please give'em a try.  Since I'm going on vacation end of this week,
> I intend to provide a fixed 2.5.1 ASAP.

Yes, that's better.  I still have two confusions, though:

1) If a directory says:

  default:users::rwx
  default:group::rwx
  default:other:r-x

  and my umask is 022

  when I create a new file by "echo test > foo.bar", foo.bar's
  perms are 644, not the 755 I would expect.

2) If the directory has g+s set (visible from -s- in the flags shown
   by getfacl), the directory's group is Cygwin, and my primary group is moss,
   then the file gets created with group moss, not group Cygwin (which is
   what g+s is supposed to mean, right?)

Thank you for your help!   Eliot Moss

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