Re: [ITP] FUSE 2.8

[Bill Zissimopoulos <billziss@navimatics.com>]

On 7/18/16, 1:19 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:


>On Jul 17 01:02, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>>The alternatives are:
>> 
>> 1. Accept the FUSE cygport package as is. Understand that it requires
>> prior installation of WinFsp in order to properly work.
>> 
>> 2. Accept the FUSE cygport package, but require that the package
>>downloads
>> and installs the WinFsp MSI (perhaps as part of its post install
>>process).
>> 
>> 3. Reject this package.
>> 
>> I have currently implemented option (1) but I am happy to change to
>>option
>> (2). The package files can be found at [CYGFUSE]. The source code for
>>the
>> package can be found under the opt/cygfuse directory in this repository:
>> [WINFSP-GH]
>
>I'm ok with whatever you guys come up with (baring licensing
>requirements).

Thanks, Corinna. I am in favor of option #1 and if the package gets
blessed I will be happy to maintain it.

>Just one comment:
>
>Bill, you're aware that the code for the "nobody" handling is not yet in
>the Cygwin git repo?  If your code requires the patch, it won't work
>with current Cygwin 2.5.2, nor with any developer snapshot.

WinFsp implements the agreed upon mapping (S-1-0-65534 <-> 65534). Cygwin
does not implement the mapping yet, which effectively means that 65534
gets mapped to -1 (Unknown+User, Unknown+Group). Here is a mini-session
with SSHFS with mapping and not mapping the local user to the remote user.

    $ ./sshfs -p PORT USER@HOST: Y:
    USER@HOST's password:
    $ ls -la /cygdrive/y
    total 16
    dr-xr-xr-x 1 Unknown+User Unknown+Group  0 Jul 15 16:49 .
    dr-xr-xr-x 1 billziss     None           0 Jul 18 12:26 ..
    -r--r--r-- 1 Unknown+User Unknown+Group 15 Jun 23 23:57 Foo.txt
    ---------- 1 Unknown+User Unknown+Group 15 Jul 15 16:48 HelloWorld.txt
    d--------- 1 Unknown+User Unknown+Group  0 Jul 15 16:49 opt
    $ pkill sshfs
    $ ./sshfs -o idmap=user -p PORT USER@HOST: Y:
    USER@HOST's password:
    $ ls -la /cygdrive/y
    total 16
    drwxr-xr-x 1 billziss Unknown+Group  0 Jul 15 16:49 .
    dr-xr-xr-x 1 billziss None           0 Jul 18 12:27 ..
    -rw-r--r-- 1 billziss Unknown+Group 15 Jun 23 23:57 Foo.txt
    -rwx------ 1 billziss Unknown+Group 15 Jul 15 16:48 HelloWorld.txt
    drwx------ 1 billziss Unknown+Group  0 Jul 15 16:49 opt
    $ pkill sshfs

>Btw., I didn't apply it yet because I was still waiting for a mailing
>list reply to https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2016-06/msg00460.html
>On second thought, this didn't look like a question, much.  So, what do
>you prefer?
>
>  "WinFSP+nobody"
>  "nodomain+nobody"
>  "no+body"
>
>Personally I like the third variation but I'm not religious about it.

My apologies. I did not understand that you were waiting on an answer from
me.

My preference is for nodomain+nobody, primarily because the individual
components “nodomain”, “nobody” describe the lack of domain and username
when read in isolation (i.e. not in the construction nodomain+nobody). But
WinFsp does not use these names (only the SID’s/UID’s) and you, Corinna,
as the Cygwin lead are more qualified than me to choose what fits Cygwin
best.

Many thanks!

Bill