X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:37:41 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: MS-DFSR conflict with cygwin file permissions Message-ID: <20090423083741.GW8722@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <49EFBEA8 DOT 8070609 AT lisec-sw DOT com> <49EFC69E DOT 3060402 AT cygwin DOT com> <49EFD253 DOT 40107 AT lisec-sw DOT com> <49EFE9E2 DOT 104 AT cygwin DOT com> <49EFF80D DOT 6000300 AT lisec-sw DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49EFF80D.6000300@lisec-sw.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Apr 23 15:09, Stefan Walter wrote: > Larry Hall (Cygwin) schrieb: >> Stefan Walter wrote: >>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) schrieb: >>>> Stefan Walter wrote: >>>>> I need this solved, because the current given permission conflict >>>>> with the Microsoft DFSr. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a way to create files with permissions inherited from >>>>> parent folder? What on earth does this have to do with DFSR? If this is a restriction in DFSR, then how would anybody be able to use it on files created under Interix? As POSIX environments, Interix and Cygwin set file and directory permissions POSIX-like, in an (almost) identical fashion. If POSIX permissions really break DFSR, I'd complain at Microsoft. However, I'm wondering if that's not just a problem in your setup. >>>> Read the section about NT security in the User's Guide >>>> and then try setting >>>> 'nontsec' >>>> in your CYGWIN environment variable >>>> . >>>> >>> That was a great hint. Note that it won't work anymore in Cygwin 1.7. See the mount option noacl instead: http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#mount-table > The loss of the POSIX permissions is fine for me. But what is then the > purpose of tty in the CYGWIN variable? None. It's a leftover from the past. Since applications called through sshd are always running in a pseudo tty, the option has no effect. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/