Should windows Exe files need unix Exe permissions?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 14:37, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> This code on line 203 of smbd/posix_acls.c maps the unix execute
> permission to the windows execute.  
> 
> 	if (mode & S_IXUSR) {
> 		if (conn->vfs_ops.sys_acl_add_perm(conn, *p_permset, SMB_ACL_EXECUTE)
> == -1)
> 			return -1;
> 	}
> 
> This would not normally be a problem - we completely ignore this when
> clients attempt to execute files located on an SMB share.  However, this
> ACL is downloaded with user profiles, and this means that a PIF on a
> user's start menu cannot be executed (this is a mandatory profile, the
> user has read/write perms, but doesn't own it).
> 
> Considering that we also use that bit for 'map archive', should we
> really be using it for execute too?  It also seems odd for windows .exes
> to need exe status under unix...
> 
> I would propose that execute permissions (windows site) be put with
> 'normal' reads.
> 
> What do people think?
> 
> In the meantime I'll just set the exe bit - or actually, I'm going to
> write a VFS module that will set the bit for me ;-)

Adding a complication - you would still need the exe permission to apply
for directories, because windows and unix have the same meaning for at
least that part of the system.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20021230/91c845cc/attachment.bin