From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] TEST RELEASE: Cygwin 2.0.0-0.7
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150418102025.GL3657@calimero.vinschen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h9sd4vl6.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2662 bytes --]
On Apr 18 11:47, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > In theory, the access(2)/faccessat(2) functions should not rely at all
> > on the new code. The reason is that they are implemented using the
> > underlying OS function to evaluate ACLs. That means, they provide the
> > actual access the OS grants.
>
> That means they do not lie to the user like the mode bits do. Which
> breaks all sorts of assumptions that POSIX programs are allowed to make.
> In turn one will almost universally have to remove the corresponding ACL
> grants (the inherited ACL will always have rwx modes) when using an
> administrator account (in this particular instance that's an easy thing
> to do, luckily). This kind of brings us back to where we started with
> the discussion of whether to handle SYSTEM and Administrators specially,
> only that the point of decision is now moved from mode check to
> (f)access(at). The outcome is the same: if you can't remove those ACL,
> then correct POSIX semantics aren't possible.
Right. It's a compromise. I take it you don't like the extra behaviour
for SYSTEM/Admins. Neither do I. Others are desperately waiting for
more. The problem with compromises is, they are usually best if nobody
is completely satisfied ;)
As I said before, this behaviour is not necessarily the last word.
We have to see how this works out. The point you're making here
is certainly a point against this implementation. But I'm willing
to defend it to get more testing.
> > In the above case, SYSTEM and Administrators both have execute
> > permissions, because they are never masked if they are secondary
> > accounts, as outlined in the test release announcement.
>
> A POSIX program trying to shortcut the ACL handling would conclude it
> doesn't need to look beyond the mode bits. A program that checks with
> faccessat anyway gets told a different story. The only analogue to this
> is with root having implicit access to files on UN*X systems, but I
> think "executable" would still be determined from the mode bits in this
> case.
Uh, not quite. POSIX defines
If any access permissions are checked, each shall be checked
individually, as described in XBD File Access Permissions , except
that where that description refers to execute permission for a
process with appropriate privileges, an implementation may indicate
success for X_OK even if execute permission is not granted to any
user.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-18 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-17 11:03 Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-17 20:10 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-18 8:39 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-18 9:47 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-18 10:20 ` Corinna Vinschen [this message]
2015-04-18 10:48 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-18 11:07 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-19 6:05 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-21 9:33 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-21 12:16 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-21 17:19 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-22 9:04 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-22 18:35 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-23 8:34 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-23 18:45 ` Achim Gratz
2015-04-23 19:49 ` Corinna Vinschen
2015-04-24 2:14 ` random user
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150418102025.GL3657@calimero.vinschen.de \
--to=corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).