noacl functionality for MS-DOS destination paths?

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Lawrence Mayer wrote:
>> On Dec 18 20:53, Lawrence Mayer wrote:
>>> Is there any way to get noacl functionality when using MS-DOS 
>>> destination
>>> paths?
>>>
>>> My etc/fstab file (below) applies noacl for UNIX destination paths e.g.
>>>
>>> C:\cygwin\bin\mkdir.exe /c/foo
>>>
>>> creates directory C:\foo with NTFS default permissions inherited from
>>> parent directory C:\ (the same as DOS mkdir C:\foo would do).
>>>
>>> But an MS-DOS destination path, e.g.
>>>
>>> C:\cygwin\bin\mkdir.exe C:\foo
>>>
>>> causes Cygwin to ignore noacl in etc/fstab and create C:\foo with
>>> POSIX-like permissions (non-NTFS default and not inherited from parent
>>> directory C:\).
>>>
>>> According to http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net.html#mount-table
>>>
>>> "Otherwise, the handling of MS-DOS filenames bypasses the mount table"
>>>
>>> But if Cygwin 1.7 bypasses etc/fstab for MS-DOS filenames and no longer
>>> supports the nontsec option, I'm stuck.
>>>
>>> When using MS-DOS destination paths in Cygwin 1.7, is there any way 
>>> to get
>>> noacl functionality - i.e. where Cygwin creates objects with NTFS 
>>> default
>>> permissions inherited from their parent directory rather than POSIX-like
>>> permissions?
>>>
>>> If not, are there any plans to add such functionality to Cygwin 1.7?
> 
> 
> On 11:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Not yet.  I'm reluctant to add a setting just for DOS paths.  What we
>> could do is to handle incoming DOS paths always in dumb Windows mode
>> (noacl,posix=0).  Given that they are not POSIX paths anyway, there's
>> probably not a lot of sense in treating them POSIXy.
>>
>>
>> Corinna
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for replying Corinna. I completely agree that always 
> handling DOS paths with noacl,posix=0 makes sense and is a substantial 
> improvement.
> 
> I'm amazed how quickly you implemented this change into v1.7.0-36! 
> Thanks so much!
> 
> Would you like any help updating the Cygwin User's Guide to reflect this 
> change? If so:
> 
> (1) Should I submit a diff -u against
> http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net.html?

Actually, it would be 
<http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/doc/pathnames.sgml?rev=1.27&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=src>

The UG is a collection of SGML files that get cobbled together by other
tools.

> (2) Should I send the diff to cygwin-patches@cygwin.com?

1 out of 2 ain't bad. ;-)  Yes, that's the right place.  Take a look at
other patch submissions there to get an idea of what is needed.

Thanks,

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
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?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/