On 6/29/16, 1:21 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com on behalf of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>If that's the case, then why do you explain all these things to me? I'm >a bit at a loss to see the difference between me explaining things to >you you already know vs. you explaing things to me I already know. >Aren't we kind of on par here? Yes, we are. Perhaps I spoke “out of turn” as the Americans say. I am sorry if it also felt like I was explaining things that you know. >>In any case I will use your mapping of S-1-0-65534 <-> 65534. > >Thanks. Do you want to add handling for this mapping to >pwdgrp::fetch_account_from_windows yourself or shall I do it? I could >come up with a patch in the next couple of days. I will prepare a >developer's snapshot then, so you can immediately test if it works as >desired. I have already added the mapping to WinFsp-FUSE. I can look into what is required to patch Cygwin. >>How do we avoid name collisions? I can easily see admins creating an >>AD account called "nobody". >>Shall we fake a "WinFSP" domain such that the name is "WinFSP+nobody"? > >Preliminary patch attached. Ok, looks like you have patched it already. Thanks for this. BTW, if the name is case-sensitive (strcmp) I usually use the “WinFsp” capitalization, if it makes a difference. Also do you foresee any situation where the “nobody” mapping might be useful outside of WinFsp? Perhaps it would make more sense to name it “nodomain+nobody”? Just a suggestion. Many thanks. Bill
