Re: POSIX permission mapping and NULL SIDs

[Bill Zissimopoulos <billziss@navimatics.com>]

On 6/24/16, 2:59 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-owner@cygwin.com on behalf
of corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:


>>>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.

Let me try this with the Anonymous SID and see what happens. In the
meantime I am going to ping some contacts from my MS days to see if there
are indeed unintended consequences.

>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.

Yes, that is beginning to dawn on me now that I have taken a better look
at sec_acl.cc.

Bill