Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?

Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?

[Corinna Vinschen]

"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> [...]
> I guess I can only offer my opinion because I don't have any experience
> with this code.  If writable_directory() is doing something wrong in both
> the ntsec and nontsec modes, it should be fixed (where eliminating it is
> 1 possible fix).  If its doing something wrong for just ntsec cases, I'd
> say conditionalize it.  I guess the big question that your description
> doesn't answer for me is, what do we loose by pulling it out as you
> describe?

What we loose is the following:

In UNIX/Linux you may not
	remove a file,
	rename a file,
	mkdir a new subdir
if you don't have write permissions to the parent directory.

In Windows you may all of the above. In Cygwin you are
actually disallowed that for being similar to U*X.

What we loose is that a user is disallowed to do something
in Cygwin while s/he may do that when using cmd or Explorer
under the same conditions.

The difference between ntsec and nontsec is that ntsec acts
(more or less) correct while nontsec only sets permission
bits and UID/GID to common values which _never_ results in
any problems with samba because the access function always
is sure that the user has sufficient permissions.

Corinna

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com