file attributes: cygwin (ls, chmod, chown, chgrp) versus XP

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Michael R. Wolf wrote:
> I'm very familiar with the Unix filesystem, and the commands to change
> and display attributes.  I've been using cygwin for years, but have yet
> to understand the XP permissions and how they correlate to how cygwin and
> XP tools manipulate attributes.
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the ls(1) output is different if I create a file with a
> cygwin utility or with an XP utility.  Specifically:
> 1. What does the "+" mean in the 11th column after the standard 1-column type 
> and 9-column permission fields? 
> 2. Why are default permissions different if the file
> is created with cygwin and XP?  I understand that cywing will try to
> create them with 666, modulated by the umask of 0022, yeilding a default
> of 644, but how the heck does XP come up with "700+" (my interpretation
> of "rwx------+")?

'+' means there are permissions that don't "fit" into the traditional user/
group/others categories.  Windows uses ACLs.  Use 'getfacl', 'setfacl',
and/or 'cacls' to access them.

> -rw-r--r--  1 michael  0 Sep  3 00:33 created_by_bash_io_redirect 
> -rwx------+ 1 michael 18 Sep  3 00:32 created_by_emacs 
> -rwx------+ 1 michael 17 Sep  3 00:31 created_by_notepad 
> -rw-r--r--  1 michael  0 Sep  3 00:31 created_by_touch
> 
> In addition, I can't get group information to show up in ls(1) output.

You mean the name?  Do you have a '/etc/group' file?  Does it have your
current groups in it?  If not, (re)generate it with 'mkgroup -l [-d]' (or
whichever options make the most sense in your environment).

> The -G flag to suppress it has no effect, and seems to always be active.

WJFFM.

> It seems like these would be an important topics to reference in the
> ls(1) and chmod(1) man pages, and also in the (seemingly outdated)
> documentation of File Permissions
> (http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#ntsec-files).

<http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-09/msg00459.html>

As for the UG, perhaps

<http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net.html>

is more to your liking?  I'd recommend reading the entire NT security
section and reading up in the MSDN on the NT(FS) security model.  This
should answer allot of questions for you (and probably generate some new
ones. ;-) )

> Have there been significatnt changes to cygwin since NT to accomodate XP?
> I don't even know if the NT and XP filesystems are similar enough that I
> can rely on documentation that discusses NT vs cygwin.

All Windows platforms since W2K are NT-based (NT 3.x and 4.x are other
previous NT-based platforms).  You can assume that when the documentation
refers to NT, it's referring to current Windows operating systems.  As
for file-systems, there are multiple options here.  I believe you're
implying that you're interested in NTFS-formatted file-systems.  Everything
I said about the documentation and NT holds true for NTFS.


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

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