On 2/21/2019 8:30 PM, Steve French wrote:
> I have wanted to change this code and improve it for a while - one
> thing which is tricky is showing mode bits when no permissions to read
> permissions though, and we also need to clean up and simplify some of
> this code. Let's follow up on this in a few days, if you are
> flexible and can install some test patches
>
FWIW, it seems to be symlinks that are unreadable when perms on
the mount are set to 'multi-user'.
Using the following two examples from my system,
in cmd.exe they look like:
04/17/2017 08:45 AM <SYMLINKD> Share [S:\]
08/22/2018 03:08 PM <JUNCTION> Symbols [\\Bliss\Share\Symbols\]*
*
in Cygwin, they look like: (domain+user+groups are shortened to fit)
(domain name, B (Bliss), username 'l' and group 'lg')
lrwxrwxrwx 1 B\l B\lg 2 Apr 17 2017 Share -> /s
lrwxrwxrwx 1 B\l B\lg 22 Aug 22 2018 Symbols -> //Bliss/Share/Symbols/
So both are links owned by me, one pointing to a locally mounted drive
and the other a remotely mounted Share on the Domain server.
On linux with single user mounting, I see:
l--------- 1 law Administrators 0 Apr 17 2017 Share -> /??/S://
drwxr-xr-x 2 law Administrators 0 Dec 17 19:14 Symbols/
Amusingly, I can read directory Symbols which results in a read
from the same server I'm doing the 'ls' from -- sorta the long way
around.
Oddly, I can't read the permissions on the symlink even though they
are usable (created directory named '??' and pointers and directories
underneath it as appropriate).
If I mount the cifs share "multiuser", I lose the capacity to see or
follow the symlinks as well as getting "Operation not supported" errors,
but the junctions still work fine:
ls: cannot access 'Share': Operation not supported
d????????? ? ? ? ? ? Share/
drwxrwxr-x 2 root Domain Admins 0 Dec 17 19:14 Symbols/
1) the Operation not supported message is dubious, since
I can read the link in single-user mount, even though the link
shows no access.
2) If the permissions on the links really are unreadable, the
'l-----' format is certainly easier on the eyes than
'd?????'.
I'd like to see the multi-user mount give at least as much information
as the single-user mount. That would make sense, wouldn't it?
Can your patch/cleanup at least solve at problem?
**
