* Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
[not found] <1895966314.19173483.1590653374238.JavaMail.zimbra@office.targem.ru>
@ 2020-05-28 8:12 ` Дмитрий Есарев
2020-05-28 13:16 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Дмитрий Есарев @ 2020-05-28 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Hi, all
When i ran cygwin 2.x, i used mkfifo -m 0600 file to create a named pipe with no user and group permissions.
in the latest cygwin the above command creates device with 0644 permissions. And i cant drop it to 0600:
cygcheck.exe -V
cygcheck (cygwin) 3.1.4
$ umask 0077
$ touch somefile; ls -l somefile
-rw------- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:15 somefile
$ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
$ chmod 600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
In old-good cygwin 2.x the command works as expected:
$ cygcheck.exe -V
cygcheck (cygwin) 2.9.0
$ umask
0022
$ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
prw------- 1 builduser Domain Users 0 May 26 18:21 somefifo
I've also questioned the topic at https://superuser.com/questions/1555204/cygwin-3-x-mkfifo-m0600-creates-named-pipe-with-0644-permissions
best regards,
Yoshi kakbudto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 8:12 ` Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m Дмитрий Есарев
@ 2020-05-28 13:16 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 14:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
2020-05-28 17:31 ` yoshi kakbudto
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2020-05-28 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 5/28/2020 4:12 AM, Дмитрий Есарев via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> When i ran cygwin 2.x, i used mkfifo -m 0600 file to create a named pipe with no user and group permissions.
>
> in the latest cygwin the above command creates device with 0644 permissions. And i cant drop it to 0600:
>
> cygcheck.exe -V
> cygcheck (cygwin) 3.1.4
>
> $ umask 0077
> $ touch somefile; ls -l somefile
> -rw------- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:15 somefile
>
> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>
> $ chmod 600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>
>
>
> In old-good cygwin 2.x the command works as expected:
>
> $ cygcheck.exe -V
> cygcheck (cygwin) 2.9.0
>
> $ umask
> 0022
>
> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> prw------- 1 builduser Domain Users 0 May 26 18:21 somefifo
Thanks for the report. The problem isn't with mkfifo, it's with the permission
information reported by ls. I did a bisection of the Cygwin development repo
and found that the regression was introduced by the following commit:
commit f36262d56ac78f04de147746ce4a85c6155e4a23
Author: Corinna Vinschen <corinna@vinschen.de>
Date: Wed Jan 29 15:14:05 2020 +0100
Cygwin: stat: fix st_mode of fifos
I'll take a look if Corinna doesn't get to it first.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 13:16 ` Ken Brown
@ 2020-05-28 14:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
2020-05-28 15:28 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 17:31 ` yoshi kakbudto
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2020-05-28 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On May 28 09:16, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 5/28/2020 4:12 AM, Дмитрий Есарев via Cygwin wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >
> > When i ran cygwin 2.x, i used mkfifo -m 0600 file to create a named pipe with no user and group permissions.
> >
> > in the latest cygwin the above command creates device with 0644 permissions. And i cant drop it to 0600:
> >
> > cygcheck.exe -V
> > cygcheck (cygwin) 3.1.4
> >
> > $ umask 0077
> > $ touch somefile; ls -l somefile
> > -rw------- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:15 somefile
> >
> > $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> > prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
> >
> > $ chmod 600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> > prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
> >
> >
> >
> > In old-good cygwin 2.x the command works as expected:
> >
> > $ cygcheck.exe -V
> > cygcheck (cygwin) 2.9.0
> >
> > $ umask
> > 0022
> >
> > $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
> > prw------- 1 builduser Domain Users 0 May 26 18:21 somefifo
>
> Thanks for the report. The problem isn't with mkfifo, it's with the
> permission information reported by ls. I did a bisection of the Cygwin
> development repo and found that the regression was introduced by the
> following commit:
>
> commit f36262d56ac78f04de147746ce4a85c6155e4a23
> Author: Corinna Vinschen <corinna@vinschen.de>
> Date: Wed Jan 29 15:14:05 2020 +0100
>
> Cygwin: stat: fix st_mode of fifos
>
> I'll take a look if Corinna doesn't get to it first.
Not sure what I was thinking at the time. I recall having observed
something funny, but the patch was apparently wrong. Just revert
it at your discretion, Ken.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 14:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2020-05-28 15:28 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 17:35 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2020-05-28 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 5/28/2020 10:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 28 09:16, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>> On 5/28/2020 4:12 AM, Дмитрий Есарев via Cygwin wrote:
>>> Hi, all
>>>
>>> When i ran cygwin 2.x, i used mkfifo -m 0600 file to create a named pipe with no user and group permissions.
>>>
>>> in the latest cygwin the above command creates device with 0644 permissions. And i cant drop it to 0600:
>>>
>>> cygcheck.exe -V
>>> cygcheck (cygwin) 3.1.4
>>>
>>> $ umask 0077
>>> $ touch somefile; ls -l somefile
>>> -rw------- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:15 somefile
>>>
>>> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>>>
>>> $ chmod 600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In old-good cygwin 2.x the command works as expected:
>>>
>>> $ cygcheck.exe -V
>>> cygcheck (cygwin) 2.9.0
>>>
>>> $ umask
>>> 0022
>>>
>>> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>> prw------- 1 builduser Domain Users 0 May 26 18:21 somefifo
>>
>> Thanks for the report. The problem isn't with mkfifo, it's with the
>> permission information reported by ls. I did a bisection of the Cygwin
>> development repo and found that the regression was introduced by the
>> following commit:
>>
>> commit f36262d56ac78f04de147746ce4a85c6155e4a23
>> Author: Corinna Vinschen <corinna@vinschen.de>
>> Date: Wed Jan 29 15:14:05 2020 +0100
>>
>> Cygwin: stat: fix st_mode of fifos
>>
>> I'll take a look if Corinna doesn't get to it first.
>
> Not sure what I was thinking at the time. I recall having observed
> something funny, but the patch was apparently wrong. Just revert
> it at your discretion, Ken.
I remember we had an IRC discussion about it, but I can't remember what the
issue was. I'll look a little more closely before reverting.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 13:16 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 14:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2020-05-28 17:31 ` yoshi kakbudto
2020-05-28 17:39 ` Ken Brown
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: yoshi kakbudto @ 2020-05-28 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
you say 'ls' is a problem source. Then i have to be more specific with the
problem to not miss any other possible problems around it.
My use case is this: I have an ssh rsa keys dynamically loaded in
environment variables.
Those variables then expaned and piped to the named pipe and then the pipe
instantly read by ssh-add.
I know there could be other ways to ssh-add from environment, but its just
our specifics.
So the actual commands looks like this:
$ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo
# The KEY contains ssh rsa private key data
$ echo $KEY > somefifo | ssh-add somefifo
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ WARNING: UNPROTECTED PRIVATE KEY FILE! @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Permissions 0644 for 'somefifo' are too open.
It is required that your private key files are NOT accessible by others.
This private key will be ignored.
--
Sent from: http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/Cygwin-list-f3.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 15:28 ` Ken Brown
@ 2020-05-28 17:35 ` Ken Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2020-05-28 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 5/28/2020 11:28 AM, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 5/28/2020 10:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On May 28 09:16, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2020 4:12 AM, Дмитрий Есарев via Cygwin wrote:
>>>> Hi, all
>>>>
>>>> When i ran cygwin 2.x, i used mkfifo -m 0600 file to create a named pipe
>>>> with no user and group permissions.
>>>>
>>>> in the latest cygwin the above command creates device with 0644 permissions.
>>>> And i cant drop it to 0600:
>>>>
>>>> cygcheck.exe -V
>>>> cygcheck (cygwin) 3.1.4
>>>>
>>>> $ umask 0077
>>>> $ touch somefile; ls -l somefile
>>>> -rw------- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:15 somefile
>>>>
>>>> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>>> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>>>>
>>>> $ chmod 600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>>> prw-r--r-- 1 admin absent 0 may 26 18:16 somefifo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In old-good cygwin 2.x the command works as expected:
>>>>
>>>> $ cygcheck.exe -V
>>>> cygcheck (cygwin) 2.9.0
>>>>
>>>> $ umask
>>>> 0022
>>>>
>>>> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo; ls -l somefifo
>>>> prw------- 1 builduser Domain Users 0 May 26 18:21 somefifo
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report. The problem isn't with mkfifo, it's with the
>>> permission information reported by ls. I did a bisection of the Cygwin
>>> development repo and found that the regression was introduced by the
>>> following commit:
>>>
>>> commit f36262d56ac78f04de147746ce4a85c6155e4a23
>>> Author: Corinna Vinschen <corinna@vinschen.de>
>>> Date: Wed Jan 29 15:14:05 2020 +0100
>>>
>>> Cygwin: stat: fix st_mode of fifos
>>>
>>> I'll take a look if Corinna doesn't get to it first.
>>
>> Not sure what I was thinking at the time. I recall having observed
>> something funny, but the patch was apparently wrong. Just revert
>> it at your discretion, Ken.
>
> I remember we had an IRC discussion about it, but I can't remember what the
> issue was. I'll look a little more closely before reverting.
OK, it turned out that part of that patch needed to be reverted. It's done now.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 17:31 ` yoshi kakbudto
@ 2020-05-28 17:39 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 18:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Ken Brown @ 2020-05-28 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On 5/28/2020 1:31 PM, yoshi kakbudto wrote:
> you say 'ls' is a problem source. Then i have to be more specific with the
> problem to not miss any other possible problems around it.
>
> My use case is this: I have an ssh rsa keys dynamically loaded in
> environment variables.
> Those variables then expaned and piped to the named pipe and then the pipe
> instantly read by ssh-add.
> I know there could be other ways to ssh-add from environment, but its just
> our specifics.
> So the actual commands looks like this:
>
> $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo
>
> # The KEY contains ssh rsa private key data
> $ echo $KEY > somefifo | ssh-add somefifo
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> @ WARNING: UNPROTECTED PRIVATE KEY FILE! @
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Permissions 0644 for 'somefifo' are too open.
> It is required that your private key files are NOT accessible by others.
> This private key will be ignored.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said the problem was with ls. The problem was actually
with stat, and it's fixed now. You should be able to test it the next time
Corinna creates a snapshot.
Ken
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m
2020-05-28 17:39 ` Ken Brown
@ 2020-05-28 18:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2020-05-28 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
On May 28 13:39, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote:
> On 5/28/2020 1:31 PM, yoshi kakbudto wrote:
> > you say 'ls' is a problem source. Then i have to be more specific with the
> > problem to not miss any other possible problems around it.
> >
> > My use case is this: I have an ssh rsa keys dynamically loaded in
> > environment variables.
> > Those variables then expaned and piped to the named pipe and then the pipe
> > instantly read by ssh-add.
> > I know there could be other ways to ssh-add from environment, but its just
> > our specifics.
> > So the actual commands looks like this:
> >
> > $ mkfifo -m 0600 somefifo
> >
> > # The KEY contains ssh rsa private key data
> > $ echo $KEY > somefifo | ssh-add somefifo
> >
> > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> > @ WARNING: UNPROTECTED PRIVATE KEY FILE! @
> > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> > Permissions 0644 for 'somefifo' are too open.
> > It is required that your private key files are NOT accessible by others.
> > This private key will be ignored.
>
> Sorry, I shouldn't have said the problem was with ls. The problem was
> actually with stat, and it's fixed now. You should be able to test it the
> next time Corinna creates a snapshot.
Done. Try the latest snapshot from https://cygwin.com/snapshots/
Thanks,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-28 18:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1895966314.19173483.1590653374238.JavaMail.zimbra@office.targem.ru>
2020-05-28 8:12 ` Seems like a bug with mkfifo -m Дмитрий Есарев
2020-05-28 13:16 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 14:52 ` Corinna Vinschen
2020-05-28 15:28 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 17:35 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 17:31 ` yoshi kakbudto
2020-05-28 17:39 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-28 18:17 ` Corinna Vinschen
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).