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
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001031123025.02090d18@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:31:39 -0500
To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com,
        cygdev <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: [RFD]: Execute permission for DLLs?
In-Reply-To: <20001031122426.A27656@redhat.com>
References: <39FEA32B DOT 58D3518F AT cygnus DOT com>
 <39FEA32B DOT 58D3518F AT cygnus DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:24 PM 10/31/2000, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>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

Right.  This is the conclusion I drew from this as well, rightly or wrongly.


Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX