From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17330: files.el cd-absolute overcome false negative from file-executable-p Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 19:24:39 +0300 Message-ID: <83r449zf3s.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1399220723 12561 80.91.229.3 (4 May 2014 16:25:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 16:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17330@debbugs.gnu.org To: Philip Hodges Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 04 18:25:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzE4-0005Nw-39 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 18:25:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53933 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzE3-00040X-I5 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56547) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDw-0003yH-Az for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDq-0005Y2-W9 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:33573) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDq-0005XE-ST for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDq-0007dE-FW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 16:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17330 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17330-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17330.139922068729305 (code B ref 17330); Sun, 04 May 2014 16:25:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17330) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2014 16:24:47 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50924 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDa-0007cb-Ht for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:24:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:64427) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WgzDX-0007cL-6B for 17330@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 12:24:44 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N52004005EGTK00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 17330@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 04 May 2014 19:24:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N520042R5L0FB80@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 04 May 2014 19:24:37 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:88631 Archived-At: > From: Philip Hodges > Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 15:24:35 +0200 > > I came across a post that confirms my suspicions that: > - the _stat st_mode bits really cannot be trusted to give a meaningful answer, no matter whether it comes from Windows or cygwin. > - it is not worth calling GetFileSecurity (which is what I meant by "something like GetFileAttributes" *) and trying to reproduce the interpretation of the ACL information > - the best way is to find out if searching a directory will succeed really is to actually try it > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3449465/find-the-permissions-of-a-file-in-windows You still didn't provide any details about your particular situation which triggers this problem. Would you _please_ do that? If is very hard to conduct a meaningful discussion without a clear understanding of the problem. Maybe you are right in your analysis, but without actually seeing the ACLs of the related directories, we cannot be sure that your analysis is correct and complete. Given the details, we could reason about the problem and maybe consult with some experts if the knowledge we have here is insufficient. That would make this discussion much more productive, and a satisfactory solution will probably be found quickly enough. Thanks in advance.