At 02:04 PM 11/24/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hi Corinna,
First off I am going to look at the Win98 home directory problem reported on the list, if you have not fixed it already. >Hi Pierre, > >a few comments: > >On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:54:32AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > >A formatting nit: OK, note taken. > >I don't like the idea that these DENY bits are still set when the acl is >returned to the application. The underlying Solaris acl implementation >doesn't know about these bits. They should be removed before returning >the acl to the application. Otherwise you're using bits which are not >defined in acl.h. That had crossed my mind. In fact acl.h does not declare any values for the a_perm field. Cygwin is simply reproducing the bits in the user, group and other fields. I searched the web and saw that other versions of unix did not even agree on the type of the a_perm field (Cygwin makes it mode_t) and that the now-defunct standard proposal was silent on the issue. So it seemed to me that all that mattered was consistency with the implementation of the routines getfacl, setfacl, etc... I have no problem with masking them off. Defining specific bits in acl.h would be nice in theory, but in absence of a standard perhaps not useful. > > >You're copying the group bits to the mask? Didn't you suggest to set >it to rwx? I think you're right. It would be better to move this line >to the initialization of the first lacl members and change it to > Yes, but not knowing the reason for the current behavior I didn't want to change it. It doesn't hurt anything. > >Same here, shouldn't the DEF_CLASS_OBJ entry have rwx, too? > Same answer! Pierre
