More passwd/group patches

Pierre A. Humblet Pierre.Humblet@ieee.org
Sun Nov 24 06:23:00 GMT 2002


At 02:04 PM 11/24/2002 +0100, you wrote:

Hi Corinna,

First off I am going to look at the Win98 home directory problem 
reported on the list, if you have not fixed it already.

>Hi Pierre,
>
>a few comments:
>
>On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:54:32AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>A formatting nit:

OK, note taken.
>
>I don't like the idea that these DENY bits are still set when the acl is
>returned to the application.  The underlying Solaris acl implementation 
>doesn't know about these bits.  They should be removed before returning
>the acl to the application.  Otherwise you're using bits which are not
>defined in acl.h.

That had crossed my mind. In fact acl.h does not declare any values for
the a_perm field. Cygwin is simply reproducing the bits in the 
user, group and other fields. I searched the web and saw that other
versions of unix did not even agree on the type of the a_perm field (Cygwin
makes it mode_t) and that the now-defunct standard proposal was silent on the 
issue. So it seemed to me that all that mattered was consistency with
the implementation of the routines getfacl, setfacl, etc... 
I have no problem with masking them off. Defining specific bits in acl.h 
would be nice in theory, but in absence of a standard perhaps not useful.
>
>
>You're copying the group bits to the mask?  Didn't you suggest to set
>it to rwx?  I think you're right.  It would be better to move this line
>to the initialization of the first lacl members and change it to
>
Yes, but not knowing the reason for the current behavior I didn't want
to change it. It doesn't hurt anything.
>
>Same here, shouldn't the DEF_CLASS_OBJ entry have rwx, too?
>
Same answer!

Pierre



More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list