This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: faked inode numbers on network drives

On Nov 26 14:49, Martin Koeppe wrote:
> There is the following assumption:
>  /* Assume that if a drive has ACL support it MAY have valid "inodes".
>      It definitely does not have valid inodes if it does not have ACL
>      support. */
> I think this assumption is wrong. Imagine a samba share without acl 
> support. It nevertheless has valid inode numbers.
> Furthermore, in the following switch() statement, inode numbers on 
> network drives are always ignored.
> And I ask why such an assumption is necessary at all.
> In the Windows API there is a function GetVolumeInformation
> which is supported from Win95 on and reports FILE_SUPPORTS_OBJECT_IDS 
> when inode numbers are valid.

Nope.  Object IDs are not inode numbers.  I suggest reading on object
IDs in MSDN.

> Is there a reason for not using this? GetVolumeInformation is already 
> used in several other places within cygwin.

Samba reports FS_PERSISTENT_ACLS, but the way has_acls() is treated
in case of CYGWIN=nosmbntsec (the default) disables its usage.  I think
I found a bug though, which might explain inconsistent behaviour.  I'm
looking into it.

But using FILE_SUPPORTS_OBJECT_IDS is definitely incorrect.  And, just
as a side note, the Samba version I'm using (3.0.20a) does not report
that it supports FILE_SUPPORTS_OBJECT_IDS.  The flags value returned
from GetVolumeInformation:

               | FILE_PERSISTENT_ACLS


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]