NTFS vs. Samba

Pierre A. Humblet Pierre.Humblet@ieee.org
Sun Aug 29 15:54:00 GMT 2004


At 05:44 PM 8/29/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 29 11:17, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> At 05:02 PM 8/29/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >  bool is_ntfs = !strcmp (fsname, "NTFS");
>> >  bool is_samba = is_ntfs && is_remote_drive ()
>> >		  && !(flags () & FILE_FILE_COMPRESSION);
>> >  has_ea ((is_ntfs && !is_samba) || !strcmp (fsname, "FAT"));
>> >  has_acls ((flags () & FS_PERSISTENT_ACLS)
>> >	    && (allow_smbntsec || !is_samba));
>> >
>> >Any good reason not to do this?
>> 
>> Yes. At work I believe I have a real remote NTFS, on which ordinary users
>> have no permission to change ACLs. Thus it's crucial to be able to allow
>> ntsec on the local machine but not on the remote machine.
>> Perhaps smbntsec could take 3 values: off, on everywhere, on on real NTFS.
>
>Hm, no, that's getting too complicated.  Sic.  Ok, scratch the idea.
>It won't make sense to support EA on remote drives either then.

One could have an smbntea that works on remote FAT (?) and real
remote NTPS but not on samba... 
Alternatively ntea could work on all systems (local or remote)
that support EA. That's how it used to work, didn't it?

Pierre



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list