Re: POSIX permission mapping and NULL SIDs

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3282 bytes --]

On Jun 24 21:37, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 6/24/16, 12:51 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-owner@cygwin.com on
> behalf of corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> >Not yet.  We're coming from the other side.  We always have *some* SID.
> >pwdgrp::fetch_account_from_windows() in uinfo.cc tries to convert the SID
> >to a passwd or group entry.  If everything fails, the SID is used in this
> >passwd/group entry verbatim, but mapped to uid/gid -1.
> 
> I also noticed that there is no uid mapping for nobody. On my OSX box it
> is -2. On many other POSIX systems it appears to be the 32-bit or 16-bit
> equivalent of -2.

In fact it's an entirely arbitrary choice.  On Fedora Linux, for instance,
there is no "nogroup", but there is:

/etc/passwd:

  nobody:x:99:99:Nobody:/:/sbin/nologin
  nfsnobody:x:65534:65534:Anonymous NFS User:/var/lib/nfs:/sbin/nologin

/etc/group:

  nobody:x:99:
  nfsnobody:x:65534:

Note the 65534 here.  This is -2 *if* the remote system uses 16 bit
signed uid/gid values.  However, these days uid/gid values are at least
32 bit, so -2 kind of lost its meaning.

> For the time being I am mapping unknown SID’s to -1 as per Cygwin.

We could kick this around a bit and maybe reserve -2, 99  or 65534 for
an arbitrary "nobody" account.  But since we're on Windows the SID value
is important, not so much the uid/gid values.

> >If you want some specific mapping we can arrange that, but it must not
> >be the NULL SID.  If you know you're communicating with a Cygwin process,
> >what about using an arbitrary, unused SID like S-1-0-42?
> 
> I am inclined to try S-1-5-7 (Anonymous). But I do not know if that is a
> bad choice for some reason or other.

I thought about Anonymous myself when I wrote my reply to your OP.  I
refrained from mentioning it because it might have some unexpected side
effect we're not aware about.

> The main reason that I am weary of using an unused SID is that Microsoft
> may decide to assign some special powers to it in a future release (e.g.
> GodMode SID). But I agree that this is rather unlikely in the S-1-0-X
> namespace.

I think it's very unlikely.  We could chose any RID value we like and
the chance for collision is nil.  When I created the new implementation
for POSIX ACLs, I toyed around with this already and used a special
Cygwin SID within the NULL SID AUTHORITY.  I'm not entirely sure why I
changed this to the NULL SID deny ACE.  I think I disliked the fact that
almost every Cygwin ACL would contain a mysterious "unknown SID".

On second thought, maybe that would have avoided the UoW problem?!?
Well, how should I have known about UoW when I implemanted this, right?

> >How do you differ nobody from nogroup if you use the same SID for both,
> >btw.?
> 
> I use the same SID for both nobody and nogroup. This should work as long
> as you use the permission mapping from the [PERMS] document.

Keep in mind that Interix only supported standard POSIX permission bits.
Cygwin strives to support POSIX ACLs per POSIX 1003.1e draft 17.  That's
a bit more extensive.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]