This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Building perl-5.10.0
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:54:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: Building perl-5.10.0
- References: <56E5E10621694E4A860212458ECD1E1C@desktop2> <015b01c7bf20$a3d3e4a0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <F3A6993B1B3741AD9B6A6D9688BB301D@desktop2> <9ea6aaa80803172015i3adb46cq3af80a70fa7ff063@mail.gmail.com> <AD1B0F102FEA451BB4C3CB6F44F0B9F5@desktop2> <47E5384E.3070503@x-ray.at> <47E711BE.2020608@byu.net> <20080401132111.GR4468@calimero.vinschen.de> <20080401134424.GS4468@calimero.vinschen.de> <47F2D593.6010106@byu.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Apr 1 18:38, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Corinna Vinschen on 4/1/2008 7:44 AM:
> | Shouldn't the "nobody" entry
> | disappear when calling chmod? That's how I understand the statement in
> | the POSIX docs:
> |
> | "An alternate file access control mechanism shall [...] be disabled for
> | a file after the file permission bits are changed for that file with
> | chmod( ). The disabling of the alternate mechanism need not disable
> | any additional mechanisms supported by an implementation."
> |
> | Either the ACLs of a file are not an "alternate" access mechanism,
> | but an "additional" access mechanism. But that doesn't match the
> | description either:
> |
> | "An additional access control mechanism shall only further restrict
> | the access permissions defined by the file permission bits."
>
> Yes, those were the two paragraphs I was noticing when I made my claim
> that cygwin's chmod(2) wasn't obeying POSIX.
>
> ACLs can serve as both "alternate" (give more rights to some users than
> what is implied by the traditional stat bits) and "additional" (restrict
> rights to certain users outside of what is shown in the traditional stat
> bits).
>
> | Or, Linux doesn't follow POSIX here, which seems unlikely to me.
>
> Actually, it seems highly likely to me - after all, at one point, POSIX
> considered standardizing a form of ACLs, but it never went anywhere (and
> in the meantime, several competing styles of how to implement ACLs cropped
> up; Solaris and Linux tackle the issue noticably different, and Selinux
> security descriptors are yet another wrinkle in the picture).
In the meantime I tested this scenario on Solaris 9 as well and I found
that it behaves exactly as Linux and Cygwin. It's nice to see that
both, Linux and Solaris, are following Cygwin's lead here <cough, cough>.
Just for the records (again), Cygwin's ACL support is modeled on the
Solaris ACL API.
> Maybe it's
> worth asking on the Austin Group mailing list?
I think so, yes. It looks somewhat unusual if two important OSes
seem to contradict what's in the specs. Are you going to ask?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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/