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: Can't execute scripts from a samba share with 1.7

On 08/06/2009 05:25 PM, Nahor wrote:
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.

I doubt that assumption would hold up to much scrutiny. Local and domain users, despite how similar the name and/or password might be, don't have any relationship to each other. There's a unique ID generated for a user of either type so there's no definitive way to correlate one user ID with another, even if that was desirable. I think you'll find that you have access to the share because you've been authenticated to use it, regardless of whether you're using the local or domain version of your login. But that has little bearing on the script in question. Since Windows doesn't see the script as executable, asking it for help in this matter wouldn't be useful, no matter who the user is when the question is asked.

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

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