X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A9828E8.40805@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:58:48 +0200 From: Christian Franke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090403 SeaMonkey/1.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [1.7] Admins can write to readonly files References: <1MgyLg-0CvIW00 AT fwd04 DOT aul DOT t-online DOT de> <4A97B5DB DOT 6010008 AT gmail DOT com> <4A981A80 DOT 2080006 AT t-online DOT de> <20090828183754 DOT GB27217 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> In-Reply-To: <20090828183754.GB27217@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 28 19:57, Christian Franke wrote: > >> This is not true when 'chmod -w ...' was done before the upgrade to 1.7. >> Cygwin 1.5 sets R/O attribute, then open for write fails with permission >> denied also on 1.7. >> > > That's why 1.7 tries not to set the R/O DOS attribute anymore. But yes, > that's not quite consistent. open(2) should open these files for writing > as well. Unfortunately this requires to remove the R/O attribute before > trying to open the file for writing. There's no atomic way to accomplish > this. > > Looks like a incomplete implementation of the restore privilege in Windows itself: If the restore privilege overrides a missing write permission in ACL, it should IMO also override the R/O attribute. I would suggest to add a warning note to the manual that Cygwin 1.7 has root behavior (with backup/restore privileges set) for all users in admin group. That differs probably from what a new user would expect. At least because bash does not start with a '#' prompt even if root is effective:-) Christian -- 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