On 6/24/16, 2:59 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com on behalf of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>>>If you want some specific mapping we can arrange that, but it must not >> >be the NULL SID. If you know you're communicating with a Cygwin >>process, >> >what about using an arbitrary, unused SID like S-1-0-42? >> >> I am inclined to try S-1-5-7 (Anonymous). But I do not know if that is a >> bad choice for some reason or other. > >I thought about Anonymous myself when I wrote my reply to your OP. I >refrained from mentioning it because it might have some unexpected side >effect we're not aware about. Let me try this with the Anonymous SID and see what happens. In the meantime I am going to ping some contacts from my MS days to see if there are indeed unintended consequences. >Keep in mind that Interix only supported standard POSIX permission bits. >Cygwin strives to support POSIX ACLs per POSIX 1003.1e draft 17. That's >a bit more extensive. Yes, that is beginning to dawn on me now that I have taken a better look at sec_acl.cc. Bill
