Proposed change for Win9x file permissions...

Christopher Faylor
Sat May 24 17:55:00 GMT 2003

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:01:43PM -0400, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
>Actually there are two patches.  The first one is to
>This changes the fstat()
>function to show Win9x permissions masked by the "umask".  This is the same
>thing early versions of
>the Linux FAT driver did, before "umask" was added as a mount option.
>Obviously that would be the better solution for Cygwin as well.  However, I
>decided try the simpler option of just using the normal umask first.
>This allows utilities like sshd to work as expected simply by wrapping them
>in a script like:
>    #!/bin/bash
>    umask 0077;exec /usr/sbin/sshd "$@"
>Of course there will be unexpected side effects if someone doesn't realize
>that umask is used this way...   But it will probably be less problematic
>than having completely unchangeable permissions
>under Win9x.

I like the idea but I'm wondering if it is too general.  Corinna, what do
you think?

>The second patch corrects an obvious typo in winusers.h that prevents the
>current CVS code from compiling.

Two patches == two email messages.  Please don't put two disparate patches
in one message.

Also, you're missing a ChangeLog entry.  Please look at the ChangeLog
entries in the cygwin directory and match them for formatting case,
tense, and style.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list