From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p3plsmtpa11-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.110]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996BE3858D28 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 20:56:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 996BE3858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kosowsky.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kosowsky.org Received: from consult.pretender ([146.115.145.129]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id 5wHPnQkBpiFHU5wHPnRWsS; Fri, 07 Jan 2022 13:56:07 -0700 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=KPyfsHJo c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=61d8a8e7 a=BYuR5sdBHlGgEYWvfiqr5Q==:117 a=BYuR5sdBHlGgEYWvfiqr5Q==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=DghFqjY3_ZEA:10 a=Y4wjOHm_AAAA:8 a=lJeV3vzo1mRhNFpRCvEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=vUyUeBe4x1l68iL-zyVZ:22 X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: inbox@kosowsky.org Received: from consult.pretender (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by consult.pretender (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E562890065 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 15:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by consult.pretender (Postfix, from userid 495) id D589E2890064; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 15:56:06 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FROM_BLANK_NAME, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Level: Received: from consult.pretender (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by consult.pretender (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92AA22890060 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2022 15:56:06 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <25048.43238.484068.737126@consult.pretender> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 15:56:06 -0500 To: cygwin@cygwin.com In-Reply-To: <8735m12k3u.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Subject: Re: Duplicate ACLs? - Can't copy file even with Admin permissions In-Reply-To: <25047.23325.33020.646017@consult.pretender> References: <25043.7019.643488.389876@consult.pretender> <8735m12k3u.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <25047.23325.33020.646017@consult.pretender> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.2.2 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: "" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfGEP1bPLlKlxaHUxrd/64HiC1QPHthbk9n8zXkaQuB6/VDnB3eMuc7oUqh3EIT2mkAickXwjmM5gTXrkk6VUktq389ekiTD11MIhUUURIi+iF3zx/jvH 573gcFla3LLhbWGzCjriNCcbykXSiAokjOiiJ+hDztMhcxLuX5m7lChaAO11KuW94y2T+zayT8RSrZE0g0VgSgPbpbOKR7s5ZBo= X-BeenThere: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 20:56:13 -0000 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 6 16:11, cyg...@kosowsky.org wrote: > It is. I realized belatedly, that 3da9e136.acl is apparently a > directory, not a file. It's actually a file... # ls -al 3da9e136.rbf -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Administrators SYSTEM 96728 Jul 8 2018 3da9e136.rbf* #file 3da9e136.rbf 3da9e136.acl: data 3da9e136.rbf: PE32 executable (DLL) (console) Intel 80386 Mono/.Net assembly, for MS Window Notice: # icacls.exe 3da9e136.rbf 3da9e136.rbf NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(OI)(CI)(F) Everyone:(OI)(CI)(RX) BUILTIN\Administrators:(OI)(CI)(F) Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files But: #icacls 3da9e136.rbf /save 3da9e136.acl processed file: 3da9e136.rbf Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files #cat 3da9e136.acl 3da9e136.rbf D:P(A;OICI;FA;;;SY)(A;OICI;0x1200a9;;;WD)(A;OICI;FA;;;BA) > So I tweaked my local test accordingly, and > here's my session output: > > $ mkdir acltest > $ chown Administrators.SYSTEM acltest > $ cat aclfile.sav > acltest > D:P(A;OICI;FA;;;SY)(A;OICI;0x1200a9;;;WD)(A;OICI;FA;;;BA) > $ icacls . /restore aclfile.sav > processed file: .\acltest > Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 > files > $ icacls acltest > acltest NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(OI)(CI)(F) > Everyone:(OI)(CI)(RX) > BUILTIN\Administrators:(OI)(CI)(F) > > Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files > > > #icacls 3da9e136.rbf > > 3da9e136.rbf NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM:(OI)(CI)(F) > > Everyone:(OI)(CI)(RX) > > BUILTIN\Administrators:(OI)(CI)(F) > > > > Successfully processed 1 files; Failed processing 0 files > > So the DACL is now identical to yours. Let's try getfacl: > > $ getfacl --version | head -1 > getfacl (cygwin) 3.3.3 > $ getfacl acltest > # file: acltest > # owner: Administrators > # group: SYSTEM > user::rwx > group::rwx > other::r-x > default:user::rwx > default:group::rwx > default:group:SYSTEM:rwx > default:mask::rwx > default:other::r-x > > Ok, that looks correct. Now compare with the output of your getfacl: > > > #getfacl 3da9e136.rbf > > # file: 3da9e136.rbf > > # owner: Administrators > > # group: SYSTEM > > user::rwx > > group::rwx > > other::r-x > > user::rwx > > group::rwx > > group:SYSTEM:rwx > > mask::rwx > > other::r-x > > It's exactly the same as the one my gefacl prints above, except the > "default:" specifier for default ACEs is missing in the output. Could that because yours is a directory and mine is a file > I can't explain that, sorry. Old getfacl version? Running an output > filter of some sort? Clutching at straws here.... #getfacl --version | head -1 getfacl (cygwin) 3.3.3