Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[W32] Edit via Samba

Expand Messages
  • Muraoka Taro
    I use vim 6.0.156 on Windows 2000. When open a file via Samba (2.0.x) server, It is marked as readonly always. # I check samba servers on Linux and MacOS X
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I use vim 6.0.156 on Windows 2000.

      When open a file via Samba (2.0.x) server,
      It is marked as 'readonly' always.
      # I check samba servers on Linux and MacOS X
      Of cource I have a permission to write that file.
      There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).
      ----
      Muraoka Taro <koron@...>
    • Bram Moolenaar
      ... Did you try what happens after backing out that patch? -- From know your smileys : [:-) Frankenstein s monster /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@moolenaar.net
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Muraoka Taro wrote:

        > I use vim 6.0.156 on Windows 2000.
        >
        > When open a file via Samba (2.0.x) server,
        > It is marked as 'readonly' always.
        > # I check samba servers on Linux and MacOS X
        > Of cource I have a permission to write that file.
        > There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).

        Did you try what happens after backing out that patch?

        --
        From "know your smileys":
        [:-) Frankenstein's monster

        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
        ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
        \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
      • Muraoka Taro
        I backed out 6.0.123, 121, 119, and 116. That version works properly. ... Muraoka Taro
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I backed out 6.0.123, 121, 119, and 116.
          That version works properly.
          ----
          Muraoka Taro <koron@...>


          > > There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).
          >
          > Did you try what happens after backing out that patch?
        • Bram Moolenaar
          ... Hmm, thus what is an improvement for some is a bug for others. :-( I don t know much about ACLs. I would appreciate if someone figures out what can be
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Muraoka Taro wrote:

            > > > There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).
            > >
            > > Did you try what happens after backing out that patch?
            >
            > I backed out 6.0.123, 121, 119, and 116.
            > That version works properly.

            Hmm, thus what is an improvement for some is a bug for others. :-(

            I don't know much about ACLs. I would appreciate if someone figures out
            what can be done to make it work for everybody!

            --
            From "know your smileys":
            C=}>;*{)) Drunk, devilish chef with a toupee in an updraft,
            a mustache, and a double chin

            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
            ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
            \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
          • Mike Williams
            By default, if any of the ACL function calls fail then the file access check fails - that is if you check for write access it will report that you don t have
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              By default, if any of the ACL function calls fail then the file access check fails - that is
              if you check for write access it will report that you don't have it.

              My guess is that if you follow mch_access() through in a debugger that one of the
              functions will fail for a Samba link causing the problem you see. The simple hack fix
              is to report success for the check even if you don't have write access (cue other bug
              reports!).

              Hmm, looking at the code, perhaps rather than immediately returning the function
              chould at least call access() before returning.

              Okay, I have found a local Samba server so I will have a look at what is happening.

              On 30 Jan 2002 at 12:48, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

              >
              > Muraoka Taro wrote:
              >
              > > > > There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).
              > > >
              > > > Did you try what happens after backing out that patch?
              > >
              > > I backed out 6.0.123, 121, 119, and 116.
              > > That version works properly.
              >
              > Hmm, thus what is an improvement for some is a bug for others. :-(
              >
              > I don't know much about ACLs. I would appreciate if someone figures out
              > what can be done to make it work for everybody!
              >
              > --
              > >From "know your smileys":
              > C=}>;*{)) Drunk, devilish chef with a toupee in an updraft,
              > a mustache, and a double chin
              >
              > /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
              > ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
              > \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///

              Mike
              --
              Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits.
            • Mike Williams
              And here is a patch ... Sure enough the first call to a Win security function was reporting it was unsupported for the Samba file. This case is now caught and
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                And here is a patch ...

                Sure enough the first call to a Win security function was reporting it was unsupported
                for the Samba file. This case is now caught and the file security check now just falls
                through to the traditional access() function.

                I have extracted all the ACL code into a separate function as it makes the logic of
                mch_access() straightforward and will make it easier to handle any other 'odd' cases
                in ACL handling.

                If others could try it out over Samba and let me know what they see it would be
                appreciated.

                TTFN

                On 30 Jan 2002 at 12:03, Mike Williams wrote:

                > By default, if any of the ACL function calls fail then the file access check fails - that is
                > if you check for write access it will report that you don't have it.
                >
                > My guess is that if you follow mch_access() through in a debugger that one of the
                > functions will fail for a Samba link causing the problem you see. The simple hack fix
                > is to report success for the check even if you don't have write access (cue other bug
                > reports!).
                >
                > Hmm, looking at the code, perhaps rather than immediately returning the function
                > chould at least call access() before returning.
                >
                > Okay, I have found a local Samba server so I will have a look at what is happening.
                >
                > On 30 Jan 2002 at 12:48, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                >
                > >
                > > Muraoka Taro wrote:
                > >
                > > > > > There may be some problem on patch 6.0.116 (about ACLs).
                > > > >
                > > > > Did you try what happens after backing out that patch?
                > > >
                > > > I backed out 6.0.123, 121, 119, and 116.
                > > > That version works properly.
                > >
                > > Hmm, thus what is an improvement for some is a bug for others. :-(
                > >
                > > I don't know much about ACLs. I would appreciate if someone figures out
                > > what can be done to make it work for everybody!
                > >
                > > --
                > > >From "know your smileys":
                > > C=}>;*{)) Drunk, devilish chef with a toupee in an updraft,
                > > a mustache, and a double chin
                > >
                > > /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                > > ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                > > \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                >
                > Mike
                > --
                > Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits.
                >

                Mike
                --
                Poets are rather silent on the subject of cheese.
              • Bram Moolenaar
                ... It sounds like a good solution. But the code looks like it will still use access() when acl_check() says the file is not writable. I think this should be
                Message 7 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mike Williams wrote:

                  > And here is a patch ...
                  >
                  > Sure enough the first call to a Win security function was reporting it
                  > was unsupported for the Samba file. This case is now caught and the
                  > file security check now just falls through to the traditional access()
                  > function.
                  >
                  > I have extracted all the ACL code into a separate function as it makes
                  > the logic of mch_access() straightforward and will make it easier to
                  > handle any other 'odd' cases in ACL handling.

                  It sounds like a good solution. But the code looks like it will still
                  use access() when acl_check() says the file is not writable. I think
                  this should be changed to let acl_check() return three values: "yes",
                  "no" or "don't know". Only in the last case access() should be used.

                  > If others could try it out over Samba and let me know what they see it
                  > would be appreciated.

                  I don't have MS-Windows 2000 or XP to try this out. I do have windows
                  NT 4.0, but I don't know if ACLs work the same there.

                  --
                  From "know your smileys":
                  <|-) Chinese
                  <|-( Chinese and doesn't like these kind of jokes

                  /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                  ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                  \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                • Muraoka Taro
                  I have tested your patch. It did not work. Samba I tested, seems supports those security functions. There are no errors, and GetEffectiveRightFromAcl()
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have tested your patch. It did not work.

                    Samba I tested, seems supports those security functions. There are no
                    errors, and GetEffectiveRightFromAcl() return 0x90000089 as ACCESS_MASK
                    for file that has permission 0644. Additionally it return 0x4000000 for
                    files have permission 0600 and 0400.
                    ----
                    Muraoka Taro <koron@...>


                    > And here is a patch ...
                    >
                    > Sure enough the first call to a Win security function was reporting it
                    > was unsupported for the Samba file. This case is now caught and the
                    > file security check now just falls through to the traditional access()
                    > function.
                  • Mike Williams
                    ... Not quite - the ACL can say you have write access but the file attributes may say read only. In that case you still need to call access() after the ACL
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 30 Jan 2002 at 14:43, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

                      > Mike Williams wrote:
                      >
                      > > And here is a patch ...
                      > >
                      > > Sure enough the first call to a Win security function was reporting it
                      > > was unsupported for the Samba file. This case is now caught and the
                      > > file security check now just falls through to the traditional access()
                      > > function.
                      > >
                      > > I have extracted all the ACL code into a separate function as it makes
                      > > the logic of mch_access() straightforward and will make it easier to
                      > > handle any other 'odd' cases in ACL handling.
                      >
                      > It sounds like a good solution. But the code looks like it will still
                      > use access() when acl_check() says the file is not writable. I think
                      > this should be changed to let acl_check() return three values: "yes",
                      > "no" or "don't know". Only in the last case access() should be used.

                      Not quite - the ACL can say you have write access but the file attributes may say
                      read only. In that case you still need to call access() after the ACL check. If the
                      ACL says you cannot write to the file then the file attributes make no difference so
                      you don't need to check them.

                      acl_check() should return TRUE if 1) the ACL check is passed, or 2) the FS reports it
                      does not support getting the file security (as it does for my Samba server). It returns
                      FALSE if 1) the ACL check fails, or 2) an ACL function returns an unexpected error.

                      The question at the moment is what should happen if an unexpected error is returned
                      from an ACL function? For now it falls on failing the access check (seen in VIM as
                      making a file RO) but it could be changed to making it writable. However, that may be
                      just postponing an error until file write time when the OS refuses to do the write.

                      > > If others could try it out over Samba and let me know what they see it
                      > > would be appreciated.
                      >
                      > I don't have MS-Windows 2000 or XP to try this out. I do have windows
                      > NT 4.0, but I don't know if ACLs work the same there.
                      >
                      > --
                      > >From "know your smileys":
                      > <|-) Chinese
                      > <|-( Chinese and doesn't like these kind of jokes
                      >
                      > /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                      > ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                      > \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///

                      Mike
                      --
                      Spelling is not the problem. Typing and looking up words is.
                    • Muraoka Taro
                      ... I have checked. It didn t work. Because of am had 0x90000089 and cm had 0x00000002(FILE_WRITE_DATA) when reached to if() statement, then acl_check()
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > On 30 Jan 2002 at 22:42, Muraoka Taro wrote:
                        >
                        > > I have tested your patch. It did not work.
                        > >
                        > > Samba I tested, seems supports those security functions. There are no
                        > > errors, and GetEffectiveRightFromAcl() return 0x90000089 as ACCESS_MASK
                        > > for file that has permission 0644. Additionally it return 0x4000000 for
                        > > files have permission 0600 and 0400.
                        >
                        > Er, then it should work. The bottom two bits of the access mask are
                        > the write and read bits respectively. Can you confirm that the
                        > function acl_check() that I added is returning TRUE? Or at least tell
                        > me the values for am and cm when the final if () statement is reached.

                        I have checked. It didn't work. Because of am had 0x90000089 and cm
                        had 0x00000002(FILE_WRITE_DATA) when reached to if() statement, then
                        acl_check() returned FALSE. Value am was returned by GetEffective...()
                        for a 0644 file. This is strange isn't it?
                        ----
                        Muraoka Taro <koron@...>
                      • Mike Williams
                        ... Ooops, my hex to binary conversion was off. An access mask of 0x90000089 states that you only have read access. If you had write access then the access
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 30 Jan 2002 at 23:37, Muraoka Taro wrote:

                          > > On 30 Jan 2002 at 22:42, Muraoka Taro wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > I have tested your patch. It did not work.
                          > > >
                          > > > Samba I tested, seems supports those security functions. There are no
                          > > > errors, and GetEffectiveRightFromAcl() return 0x90000089 as ACCESS_MASK
                          > > > for file that has permission 0644. Additionally it return 0x4000000 for
                          > > > files have permission 0600 and 0400.
                          > >
                          > > Er, then it should work. The bottom two bits of the access mask are
                          > > the write and read bits respectively. Can you confirm that the
                          > > function acl_check() that I added is returning TRUE? Or at least tell
                          > > me the values for am and cm when the final if () statement is reached.
                          >
                          > I have checked. It didn't work. Because of am had 0x90000089 and cm
                          > had 0x00000002(FILE_WRITE_DATA) when reached to if() statement, then
                          > acl_check() returned FALSE. Value am was returned by GetEffective...()
                          > for a 0644 file. This is strange isn't it?

                          Ooops, my hex to binary conversion was off. An access mask of 0x90000089 states
                          that you only have read access. If you had write access then the access mask would
                          have a value of 0x9000008B.

                          It is starting to look like a problem with your Samba server - what make and version
                          are you using?

                          > ----
                          > Muraoka Taro <koron@...>

                          Mike
                          --
                          Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
                        • Mike Williams
                          I seem to have access to two different Samba servers. One is running under SunOS and does not support ACLs, which is why the patch works for me - we most
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I seem to have access to two different Samba servers. One is running under SunOS
                            and does not support ACLs, which is why the patch works for me - we most likely
                            want that in VIm anyway. The other is I guess the 'free' version running on Linux and
                            FreeBSD (reported versions of 2.0.7 and 2.2.1a). None of these report write
                            permission from the ACL functions on files that have write permission bits set
                            although access() works and says I can write to the file - go figure.

                            I am a complete Samba neophyte and have no idea whether this is a 'limitation' of
                            Samba or a configuration option. Anyone with knowledge who can chip in any ideas?

                            On 30 Jan 2002 at 14:46, Mike Williams wrote:

                            > On 30 Jan 2002 at 23:37, Muraoka Taro wrote:
                            >
                            > > > On 30 Jan 2002 at 22:42, Muraoka Taro wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > > I have tested your patch. It did not work.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Samba I tested, seems supports those security functions. There are no
                            > > > > errors, and GetEffectiveRightFromAcl() return 0x90000089 as ACCESS_MASK
                            > > > > for file that has permission 0644. Additionally it return 0x4000000 for
                            > > > > files have permission 0600 and 0400.
                            > > >
                            > > > Er, then it should work. The bottom two bits of the access mask are
                            > > > the write and read bits respectively. Can you confirm that the
                            > > > function acl_check() that I added is returning TRUE? Or at least tell
                            > > > me the values for am and cm when the final if () statement is reached.
                            > >
                            > > I have checked. It didn't work. Because of am had 0x90000089 and cm
                            > > had 0x00000002(FILE_WRITE_DATA) when reached to if() statement, then
                            > > acl_check() returned FALSE. Value am was returned by GetEffective...()
                            > > for a 0644 file. This is strange isn't it?
                            >
                            > Ooops, my hex to binary conversion was off. An access mask of 0x90000089 states
                            > that you only have read access. If you had write access then the access mask would
                            > have a value of 0x9000008B.
                            >
                            > It is starting to look like a problem with your Samba server - what make and version
                            > are you using?
                            >
                            > > ----
                            > > Muraoka Taro <koron@...>
                            >
                            > Mike
                            > --
                            > Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.
                            >

                            Mike
                            --
                            Has anybody actually seen a newt inebriated?
                          • Muraoka Taro
                            ... I use 2.0.9 on MacOS X and 2.0.7 on Linux. I checked permission of the file via network (using Windows file property). it seems to have write access for
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > It is starting to look like a problem with your Samba server - what make
                              > and version are you using?

                              I use 2.0.9 on MacOS X and 2.0.7 on Linux.
                              I checked permission of the file via network
                              (using Windows file property).
                              it seems to have write access for remote machine's user.

                              Then, I tried to change permission on remote machine. First I set a file
                              permission 0644, and load it with vim on local machine via network, it was
                              marked as 'readonly'. Second I set permission 0666 to same file, it was
                              marked 'noreadonly'. And last I set permission 0466, it was marked
                              'readonly'.
                              ----
                              Muraoka Taro <koron@...>
                            • Mike Williams
                              ... A quick Google search on acl and samba seems to imply samba only really started supporting Windows ACLs with version 2.2. Prior to that seems a bit of a
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 31 Jan 2002 at 0:18, Muraoka Taro wrote:

                                > > It is starting to look like a problem with your Samba server - what make
                                > > and version are you using?
                                >
                                > I use 2.0.9 on MacOS X and 2.0.7 on Linux.
                                > I checked permission of the file via network
                                > (using Windows file property).
                                > it seems to have write access for remote machine's user.

                                A quick Google search on acl and samba seems to imply samba only really started
                                supporting Windows ACLs with version 2.2. Prior to that seems a bit of a hack -
                                although I am imagine I am doing them a great disservice saying that.

                                > Then, I tried to change permission on remote machine. First I set a file
                                > permission 0644, and load it with vim on local machine via network, it was
                                > marked as 'readonly'. Second I set permission 0666 to same file, it was
                                > marked 'noreadonly'. And last I set permission 0466, it was marked
                                > 'readonly'.

                                Looks like Samba's rules for write access is only if all the w bits are set. Oh dear.

                                > ----
                                > Muraoka Taro <koron@...>

                                Mike
                                --
                                Living on Earth includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
                              • Joseph Edward Miele
                                I did a little checking on Samba and ACLs too. For what it is worth, check out this URL describing a similar problem with Samba:
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jan 30, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I did a little checking on Samba and ACLs too.

                                  For what it is worth, check out this URL describing a similar problem with Samba:

                                  http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/008918.html

                                  Here is the response that I found:

                                  http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/025034.html

                                  Is there a way to set up vim so that we can turn off ACL support in vim so those
                                  of us using Samba can still use vim with it? Or is that something that has to be
                                  done on the Samba side? I know that setting world writable permissions isn't an
                                  option... at least it isn't for me.

                                  What are your thoughts?

                                  - Joe Miele


                                  Mike Williams wrote:

                                  > On 31 Jan 2002 at 0:18, Muraoka Taro wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >>>It is starting to look like a problem with your Samba server - what make
                                  >>>and version are you using?
                                  >>>
                                  >>I use 2.0.9 on MacOS X and 2.0.7 on Linux.
                                  >>I checked permission of the file via network
                                  >>(using Windows file property).
                                  >>it seems to have write access for remote machine's user.
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > A quick Google search on acl and samba seems to imply samba only really started
                                  > supporting Windows ACLs with version 2.2. Prior to that seems a bit of a hack -
                                  > although I am imagine I am doing them a great disservice saying that.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >>Then, I tried to change permission on remote machine. First I set a file
                                  >>permission 0644, and load it with vim on local machine via network, it was
                                  >>marked as 'readonly'. Second I set permission 0666 to same file, it was
                                  >>marked 'noreadonly'. And last I set permission 0466, it was marked
                                  >>'readonly'.
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > Looks like Samba's rules for write access is only if all the w bits are set. Oh dear.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >>----
                                  >>Muraoka Taro <koron@...>
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > Mike
                                  >
                                • Bram Moolenaar
                                  ... I don t understand the explanation given. When you mount a file system through samba, you can specify the user ID that is to be used for it. Perhaps that
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jan 31, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Joseph Edward Miele wrote:

                                    > I did a little checking on Samba and ACLs too.
                                    >
                                    > For what it is worth, check out this URL describing a similar problem with Samba:
                                    >
                                    > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/008918.html
                                    >
                                    > Here is the response that I found:
                                    >
                                    > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/025034.html
                                    >
                                    > Is there a way to set up vim so that we can turn off ACL support in vim so those
                                    > of us using Samba can still use vim with it? Or is that something that has to be
                                    > done on the Samba side? I know that setting world writable permissions isn't an
                                    > option... at least it isn't for me.

                                    I don't understand the explanation given. When you mount a file system
                                    through samba, you can specify the user ID that is to be used for it.
                                    Perhaps that is a solution?

                                    I hesitate to make a disable-ACL option, because it's working around the
                                    problem and many people won't be able to figure out it needs to be set
                                    anyway.

                                    --
                                    hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                    113. You are asked about a bus schedule, you wonder if it is 16 or 32 bits.

                                    /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                    ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                    \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                                  • Mike Williams
                                    ... I can see 3 options at the moment: 1) Remove ACL support from the PC builds. Causes problems for those using ACLs (which was why the work was originally
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jan 31, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On 31 Jan 2002 at 11:10, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

                                      > Joseph Edward Miele wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > I did a little checking on Samba and ACLs too.
                                      > >
                                      > > For what it is worth, check out this URL describing a similar problem with Samba:
                                      > >
                                      > > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/008918.html
                                      > >
                                      > > Here is the response that I found:
                                      > >
                                      > > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/025034.html
                                      > >
                                      > > Is there a way to set up vim so that we can turn off ACL support in vim so those
                                      > > of us using Samba can still use vim with it? Or is that something that has to be
                                      > > done on the Samba side? I know that setting world writable permissions isn't an
                                      > > option... at least it isn't for me.
                                      >
                                      > I don't understand the explanation given. When you mount a file system
                                      > through samba, you can specify the user ID that is to be used for it.
                                      > Perhaps that is a solution?
                                      >
                                      > I hesitate to make a disable-ACL option, because it's working
                                      > around the problem and many people won't be able to figure out it
                                      > needs to be set anyway.

                                      I can see 3 options at the moment:

                                      1) Remove ACL support from the PC builds. Causes problems for those using ACLs
                                      (which was why the work was originally done).

                                      2) Do nothing and wait for Samba to sort itself out (version 2.2+), causing some
                                      problems for those accessing files over Samba (but there is a workaround if they set
                                      all the write permission bits - add to win32 help for Samba as a workaround so it is at
                                      least documented)

                                      3) Add control over applying ACL checks, perhaps filtered on absolute directory
                                      name - i.e. the mapped disk letter or UNC root (\\unix-box). At least a filter option can
                                      be added to the startup or session file.

                                      > --
                                      > hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                      > 113. You are asked about a bus schedule, you wonder if it is 16 or 32 bits.
                                      >
                                      > /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                      > ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                      > \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///

                                      Mike
                                      --
                                      Anarchy is better than no government at all.
                                    • Mark Waggoner
                                      ... Reading the second URL sited above (which makes reference to stupid NT apps actually bother to use GetEffectiveRightsFromAcl() ) and from the small amount
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jan 31, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Mike Williams wrote:

                                        > On 31 Jan 2002 at 11:10, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Joseph Edward Miele wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > I did a little checking on Samba and ACLs too.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > For what it is worth, check out this URL describing a similar problem with Samba:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/008918.html
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Here is the response that I found:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/2000-September/025034.html
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Is there a way to set up vim so that we can turn off ACL support in vim so those
                                        > > > of us using Samba can still use vim with it? Or is that something that has to be
                                        > > > done on the Samba side? I know that setting world writable permissions isn't an
                                        > > > option... at least it isn't for me.
                                        > >
                                        > > I don't understand the explanation given. When you mount a file system
                                        > > through samba, you can specify the user ID that is to be used for it.
                                        > > Perhaps that is a solution?
                                        > >
                                        > > I hesitate to make a disable-ACL option, because it's working
                                        > > around the problem and many people won't be able to figure out it
                                        > > needs to be set anyway.
                                        >
                                        > I can see 3 options at the moment:
                                        >
                                        > 1) Remove ACL support from the PC builds. Causes problems for those using ACLs
                                        > (which was why the work was originally done).
                                        >
                                        > 2) Do nothing and wait for Samba to sort itself out (version 2.2+), causing some
                                        > problems for those accessing files over Samba (but there is a workaround if they set
                                        > all the write permission bits - add to win32 help for Samba as a workaround so it is at
                                        > least documented)
                                        >
                                        > 3) Add control over applying ACL checks, perhaps filtered on absolute directory
                                        > name - i.e. the mapped disk letter or UNC root (\\unix-box). At least a filter option can
                                        > be added to the startup or session file.

                                        Reading the second URL sited above (which makes reference to "stupid NT
                                        apps actually bother to use GetEffectiveRightsFromAcl()") and from the
                                        small amount I know about samba use in my work environment, there isn't
                                        likely to be a real "fix" for the Samba permissions problem any time
                                        soon. I'd have to say that asking people to workaround the problem via
                                        solution #2 is much worse than allowing them to work around it by
                                        disabling ACL checks in vim.

                                        --
                                        Mark Waggoner | You do not like them. So you say.
                                        waggoner@... | Try them! Try them! And you may.
                                        503-712-3335 | Try them and you may, I say.
                                        dpg-or.pdx.intel.com/~waggoner |
                                      • Mike Williams
                                        ... At the moment I am leaning towards totally backing out patch 116 - support for ACLs on Windows. As Bram pointed out, fixing a bug in one place is
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jan 31, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 31 Jan 2002 at 8:58, Mark Waggoner wrote:

                                          > Reading the second URL sited above (which makes reference to "stupid NT
                                          > apps actually bother to use GetEffectiveRightsFromAcl()") and from the
                                          > small amount I know about samba use in my work environment, there isn't
                                          > likely to be a real "fix" for the Samba permissions problem any time
                                          > soon. I'd have to say that asking people to workaround the problem via
                                          > solution #2 is much worse than allowing them to work around it by
                                          > disabling ACL checks in vim.

                                          At the moment I am leaning towards totally backing out patch 116 - support for ACLs
                                          on Windows. As Bram pointed out, fixing a bug in one place is introducing another
                                          somewhere else where it worked fine before (even if it is not VIM's fault), and adding
                                          Yet Another Option to disable ACL just adds complexity to the average user. At least
                                          nothing will have changed relative to version 6.0 so there should not be any more bug
                                          reports.

                                          Mike
                                          --
                                          The first lesson in self defence is to keep your glasses on.
                                        • Bram Moolenaar
                                          ... But backing out patch 116 will mean it s wrong for file systems where ACLs are actually used, right? It s not only a question of who runs into one of these
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jan 31, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Mike Williams wrote:

                                            > On 31 Jan 2002 at 8:58, Mark Waggoner wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > Reading the second URL sited above (which makes reference to "stupid NT
                                            > > apps actually bother to use GetEffectiveRightsFromAcl()") and from the
                                            > > small amount I know about samba use in my work environment, there isn't
                                            > > likely to be a real "fix" for the Samba permissions problem any time
                                            > > soon. I'd have to say that asking people to workaround the problem via
                                            > > solution #2 is much worse than allowing them to work around it by
                                            > > disabling ACL checks in vim.
                                            >
                                            > At the moment I am leaning towards totally backing out patch 116 -
                                            > support for ACLs on Windows. As Bram pointed out, fixing a bug in one
                                            > place is introducing another somewhere else where it worked fine
                                            > before (even if it is not VIM's fault), and adding Yet Another Option
                                            > to disable ACL just adds complexity to the average user. At least
                                            > nothing will have changed relative to version 6.0 so there should not
                                            > be any more bug reports.

                                            But backing out patch 116 will mean it's wrong for file systems where
                                            ACLs are actually used, right?

                                            It's not only a question of who runs into one of these two bugs, but
                                            also how severe the problem is.

                                            I wonder what is the actual problem for Samba: That Vim marks a file as
                                            read-only or that it can't write it at all?

                                            --
                                            hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                            125. You begin to wonder how often it REALLY is necessary to get up
                                            and shower or bathe.

                                            /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                            ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                            \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
                                          • Mike Williams
                                            ... Correct, but that is the current situation with version 6.0 so there wont be a large number of hey, what changed with using Samba? type questions if the
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Feb 1, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 31 Jan 2002 at 20:06, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

                                              > But backing out patch 116 will mean it's wrong for file systems where
                                              > ACLs are actually used, right?

                                              Correct, but that is the current situation with version 6.0 so there wont be a large
                                              number of 'hey, what changed with using Samba?' type questions if the patch goes in
                                              6.1.

                                              > It's not only a question of who runs into one of these two bugs, but
                                              > also how severe the problem is.

                                              No one was really jumping up and down for the original patch - NT has had ACLs for
                                              years. Yet someone has hit Samba problems within a couple of months of the patch.

                                              > I wonder what is the actual problem for Samba: That Vim marks a file as
                                              > read-only or that it can't write it at all?

                                              For me just that it marks it read-only - I can still write with :w! So I guess this comes
                                              down to a large annoyance feature using ACLs over Samba.

                                              >
                                              > --
                                              > hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                              > 125. You begin to wonder how often it REALLY is necessary to get up
                                              > and shower or bathe.
                                              >
                                              > /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                                              > ((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
                                              > \\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///

                                              Mike
                                              --
                                              It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize you are in a hurry.
                                            • Corinna Vinschen
                                              ... Just as a side note. Cygwin deals with ACLs if the so called `ntsec feature is switched on. Due to the wide configurability of Samba and it s sometimes
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Feb 1, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:53:01AM -0000, Mike Williams wrote:
                                                > For me just that it marks it read-only - I can still write with :w! So I guess this comes
                                                > down to a large annoyance feature using ACLs over Samba.

                                                Just as a side note. Cygwin deals with ACLs if the so called `ntsec'
                                                feature is switched on. Due to the wide configurability of Samba and
                                                it's sometimes inconsistent behaviour related to ACLs I had to add
                                                another option which allows to switch off using ACLs on network drives
                                                while still using them on local drives. Not a perfect solution but
                                                I didn't find a better way yet :-(

                                                Corinna

                                                --
                                                Corinna Vinschen
                                                Cygwin Developer
                                                Red Hat, Inc.
                                                mailto:vinschen@...
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.