Re: [maybe-ITP] gamin

["Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Yes, probably checking dinamically if the disk is FAT and ignore
> permission issues in that case is the best solution.

How about this; gamin_check_not_fat() can be an additional condition to 
the "wrong permissions" errors.

(Believe it or not, my C programming isn't that strong.  So please check 
this over, although this was mostly borrowed from Corinna.)

#ifdef __CYGWIN__

/* Code adapted from Corinna Vinschen's getvolumeinfo.c:
   http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-01/msg00818.html */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/cygwin.h>
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500
#include <windows.h>

#ifndef FILE_READ_ONLY_VOLUME
#define FILE_READ_ONLY_VOLUME 0x80000
#endif

#endif  /* __CYGWIN__ */

/**
 * gamin_check_not_fat:
 *
 * On Cygwin, check if socket dir is on not a FAT drive.  This is
 * necessary because gamin_check_secure_{dir,path} check permissions,
 * and FAT drives do not have a permissions model; everything is 755.
 *
 * On other platforms, we assume that the socket dir is not on FAT.
 *
 * Returns 1 if NOT on a FAT drive, 0 if on FAT, -1 in case of error.
 */
static int
gamin_check_not_fat (void)
{
#ifdef __CYGWIN__
  const char *cygpath;
  char winpath[256];
  char rootdir[256];
  char volname[256];
  char fsname[256];
  DWORD sernum = 0;
  DWORD maxlen = 0;
  DWORD flags = 0;

  cygpath = gamin_get_socket_dir();

  cygwin_conv_to_full_win32_path (cygpath, winpath);
  if (!GetVolumePathName(winpath, rootdir, 256))
    {
      fprintf (stderr, "GetVolumePathName: %d\n", GetLastError ());
      return -1;
    }
  if (!GetVolumeInformation (rootdir, volname, 256, &sernum,
                             &maxlen, &flags, fsname, 256))
    {
      fprintf (stderr, "GetVolumeInformation: %d\n", GetLastError ());
      return -1;
    }
  if (strcmp(fsname, "FAT") == 0)
    {
      return 0;
    }
#endif  /* __CYGWIN__ */
  return 1;
}

> If you mean "no one else will do that for you" I do perfectly agree, my
> message was maybe a bit unclear about that, but I wasn't asking anyone
> actually ;-)

Exactly.

> Alex already ported the patches to 0.1.7 but it seems that 0.1.7 breaks
> polling itself, probably because there are no more linuxes without
> dnotify or inotify around, so the author didn't notice. We are
> investigating this problem, anyway.

And it looks like FreeBSD has yet to figure it out themselves either, so 
at least we have good company. :-)


Yaakov