On Jun 30 00:03, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 6/29/16, 1:21 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
> >>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+nobo
On 6/29/16, 1:21 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" 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
On Jun 29 15:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Jun 29 10:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jun 28 18:06, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> > > 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_ac
Hi Bill,
On Jun 29 10:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 28 18:06, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> > 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
>
On Jun 28 18:06, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 6/28/16, 3:27 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>Ok. Please keep in mind that
> >
> >a) there can't be a bijective mapping between arbitrary length SIDs
> > and a 32 bit uid/gid.
> >
> >b) The mapping used in Cyg
Since these emails go to a list, not just Bill, and are archived,
the extra detail is added value and appreciated by other people now & in future.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Bill Zissimopoulos
wrote:
> On 6/28/16, 3:27 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Ok.
On 6/28/16, 3:27 AM, "Corinna Vinschen" wrote:
>>Ok. Please keep in mind that
>
>a) there can't be a bijective mapping between arbitrary length SIDs
> and a 32 bit uid/gid.
>
>b) The mapping used in Cygwin is not self-created but (mostly, except
> for a single deviation) identical to the In
On Jun 27 19:01, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>
> >Why don't we just follow Fedora Linux here and use a mapping to either
> >99 (nobody) or 65534 (nfsnobody)? Both uid values are ununsed in the
> >mapping and 65534 aka 0xfffe has the additional advantage that it's not
> >mapped at all (all values be
>Why don't we just follow Fedora Linux here and use a mapping to either
>99 (nobody) or 65534 (nfsnobody)? Both uid values are ununsed in the
>mapping and 65534 aka 0xfffe has the additional advantage that it's not
>mapped at all (all values between 0x1000 and 0x are invalid).
>
>Also, since
On Jun 24 23:03, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 6/24/16, 3:53 PM, "cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com on behalf of Bill
> Zissimopoulos" billz...@navimatics.com> wrote:
>
>
> >One caveat is that Cygwin already maps S-1-5-7 to uid 7. So does that mean
> >that 7==nobody in Cygwin’s case?
>
> Here is output
On Jun 27 12:23, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Bill Zissimopoulos!
>
> >>> The main reason that I am weary of using an unused SID is that Microsoft
> >>> may decide to assign some special powers to it in a future release (e.g.
> >>> GodMode SID). But I agree that this is rather unlikely in the
Greetings, Bill Zissimopoulos!
>>> The main reason that I am weary of using an unused SID is that Microsoft
>>> may decide to assign some special powers to it in a future release (e.g.
>>> GodMode SID). But I agree that this is rather unlikely in the S-1-0-X
>>> namespace.
>>
>>I think it's very u
On 6/24/16, 2:59 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" 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-
> On Jun 24 21:37, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
>> On 6/24/16, 12:51 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" cygwin.com on
>> behalf of corinna-cygwin cygwin.com> wrote:
>> 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 mys
On 6/24/16, 3:53 PM, "cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com on behalf of Bill
Zissimopoulos" wrote:
>One caveat is that Cygwin already maps S-1-5-7 to uid 7. So does that mean
>that 7==nobody in Cygwin’s case?
Here is output from Cygwin/SSHFS after mapping “nobody/nogroup” to S-1-5-7:
<<
billziss@windows:~$
On 6/24/16, 3:06 PM, "cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com on behalf of Erik
Soderquist" wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> 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 my
On 6/24/16, 2:59 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" 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-
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 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
On Jun 24 21:37, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> On 6/24/16, 12:51 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" behalf of corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
> >Not yet. We're coming from the other side. We always have *some* SID.
> >pwdgrp::fetch_account_from_windows() in uinfo.cc tries to convert the SID
> >to a passwd o
On 6/24/16, 12:51 PM, "Corinna Vinschen" wrote:
>>Could my mapping of the NULL SID somehow interfere with Cygwin’s ACL
>> mapping? No way right? Turns out that: yes!
>>File:winsup/cygwin/sec_acl.cc,
>> line:787
>
>Read the comment at the beginning of the file explaining how new-style
>ACLs look
On Jun 24 21:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 24 18:07, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> > Could my mapping of the NULL SID somehow interfere with Cygwin’s ACL
> > mapping? No way right? Turns out that: yes! File:winsup/cygwin/sec_acl.cc,
> > line:787
>
> Read the comment at the beginning of the fi
On Jun 24 18:07, Bill Zissimopoulos wrote:
> Could my mapping of the NULL SID somehow interfere with Cygwin’s ACL
> mapping? No way right? Turns out that: yes! File:winsup/cygwin/sec_acl.cc,
> line:787
Read the comment at the beginning of the file explaining how new-style
ACLs look like.
> Allow
EXEUTIVE EDITION
I am seeking information on how exactly Cygwin uses NULL SID ACE’s in
Windows ACL’s. Cygwin’s use of NULL SID ACE’s interferes with my use of
the NULL SID to represent “nobody”/“nogroup”.
AN EXPERIMENT
Working through some remaining warts in my WinFsp-FUSE for Cygwin layer I
st
23 matches
Mail list logo
