Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>
> This looks pretty much like a band-aid. I can see the use for checking
> the last error code, but shouldn't Cygwin opt for safety and not assume
> ACLs? Also, if there's no right to read a remote drive, there might be
> a good reason for that, which doesn't necessarily mean the drive has acls.
>
> After all, the effect of chmod -r can be reverted with Windows own means.
Background: I noticed all of that when testing the SetCurrentDirectory("c:\\").
Took me a while to understand why chmod stopped working. On XP HOME there
is no security gui, so I had to use cacls. Not nice.
By the time we call fs_info::update, we have done a successful
GetFileAttributes for a file on the disk. So we know we can access it OK.
I can't imagine any mechanism whereby GetVolumeInfo would return ACCESS_DENIED
if there were no acls. For remote drives has_acls is off by default (smbntsec).
Pierre
