access_table() challenge - win a Samba t-shirt!

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Jeremy Allison wrote:

> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Michael Glauche wrote:
> > 
> > > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Michael Glauche wrote:
> > > >
> > > > oh!  i wonder what happens if you convert this to ACL format?  what
> > > > happens if we convert this into an ACL, with execute permissions etc being
> > > > requested, etc?
> > > >
> > > > i wonder if a bitmask is better for this because in NT it _is_ implemented
> > > > as a bitmask - SEC_ACCESS_EXECUTE; SEC_ACCESS_READ etc!
> > >
> > > Well .. it really looks like some tricks with bitmasks ...
> > > Something like :
> > > DOS_OPEN_RDONLY = 01
> > > DOS_OPEN_WRONLY = 10
> > > DOS_OPEN_RDWR   = 11
> > >
> > > (so that ..RDONLY + ..WRONLY = RDWR)
> > 
> > ok, so we translate the whole lot into SEC_ACCESS bitmask permissions,
> > create an ACE-checker (which does SEC_ACCESS_FULL_CONTROL asa special
> > case), and see what happens.
> 
> No - the deny modes are nothing to do with the SEC_ACCESS
> stuff. They are *not* ACE's.
> 

they can't be translated _into_ permission sets?