Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:24:26 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: [RFD]: Execute permission for DLLs?
Message-ID: <20001031122426.A27656@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <39FEA32B DOT 58D3518F AT cygnus DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <39FEA32B.58D3518F@cygnus.com>; from vinschen@cygnus.com on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:47:07AM +0100

On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:47:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On NTFS partitions, NT/W2K require the execute permission for DLLs to
>allow loading a DLL on process startup.
>
>That's no problem unless a person using `ntsec' gets a tar archive
>packed by a person not using `ntsec' or packing on a FAT partition.
>Since Cygwin fakes the execute permission only for the suffixes
>"exe", "bat", "com", DLLs are treated as non executable by the
>stat() call when `ntsec' isn't set.
>
>When a person using `ntsec' unpacks that tar archive, the start of
>an application which requires one of the DLLs from the archive will
>fail with the Windows message
>
>  "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000022)"
>
>which isn't that meaningful for most of the users.
>
>To solve that problem we would have to do a simple step. Fake
>execute permissions for DLLs when `ntsec' isn't set or the file
>system doesn't support ACLs (FAT/FAT32).
>
>Thoughts?

Are you saying that we *always* turn executable permissions on when
we create a DLL file on NT?  That makes sense to me.

cgf