X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Nahor <nahor.j+gmane AT gmail DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7
Date:	Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:25:21 -0700
Lines:	26
Message-ID:	<h5fho1$u66$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:	<h5cqnj$c9f$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <20090806142010 DOT GE3204 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <h5f54a$nkt$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <20090806180441 DOT GB19829 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
In-Reply-To:	<20090806180441.GB19829@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  6 10:50, Nahor wrote:
>   
>> One weird thing though, the directory permission are 700 and yet I can  
>> list the content of the directory, cd in it and add/delete files. So  
>> permissions are not consistently checked. But then, I assume it's  
>> because all that is done by Windows/Samba while the permission check on  
>> the script is done by Cygwin? Same thing with executing binary (I was  
>> able to execute a binary file copied on the share even though I couldn't  
>> execute scripts)?
>>     
> Most of Cygwin relys on the permission checks of the underlying OS.
> In case of scripts, that's not possible.  Therefore it has to check
> script permissions explicitely.  Note that it doesn't do a simple
> POSIX permission bit check, rather it calls an OS function asking
> "does *this* account have the right to execute *that* file?"  That
> should result in the most consistent behaviour, as far as Windows
> consistency goes.
>   

Cygwin can't also check with an account with the same login and 
password? I assume that's what Windows does and why I'm allowed, as a 
user LOCAL\nahor, to access the share that belongs exclusively to the 
user DOMAIN\nahor.

    Nahor


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -