Hi,
NTFS 2.0.1 for kernel 2.5.7 is now available. This is a minor update,
mainly to allow binaries to be executed by changing the default permissions
on files to include the executable bit. This feature has often been
requested by wine users so here it is. (-:
Sorry for the quick succession of releases but the web server hosting the
2.0.0 patches is now off line so I had to move the location and I used the
opportunity to release this minor update.
Best regards,
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
Is this a good default?
IMHO you usually would not want to execute stuff off NTFS, and
if you do you can always just explicitly invoke using wine like:
`wine /ntfs/lookout.exe`
To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
midnight commander (won't open executable files)
ls colorizing
shell tab completion
...
see:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=100143416100009&r=1&w=2
I think the default should be
rx for directories and r for files
Padraig.
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NTFS 2.0.1 for kernel 2.5.7 is now available. This is a minor update,
> mainly to allow binaries to be executed by changing the default
> permissions on files to include the executable bit. This feature has
> often been requested by wine users so here it is. (-:
>
> Sorry for the quick succession of releases but the web server hosting
> the 2.0.0 patches is now off line so I had to move the location and I
> used the opportunity to release this minor update.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Anton
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote:
> Is this a good default?
I don't see what's wrong with that. It follows the logic of least
surprise. In Windows all files are executable as there is no way to
distinguish executables from non-executables due to lack of executable
bit. NTFS on Linux has no way of telling the difference either and hence
it makes sense to allow execution of all files.
If you don't like it, use -o noexec,fmask=0111 and you will not have any
files being executable.
> IMHO you usually would not want to execute stuff off NTFS, and
> if you do you can always just explicitly invoke using wine like:
> `wine /ntfs/lookout.exe`
No you couldn't.
> To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
> midnight commander (won't open executable files)
Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
> ls colorizing
I like green files. (-;
> shell tab completion
Heh?!? Works for me. Fix your shell settings.
> ...
Like what?
> see:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=100143416100009&r=1&w=2
Read it. I still don't see any reason for not having x on files by
default.
> I think the default should be
> rx for directories and r for files
If you think so just use fmask to clear the x bit and be happy.
I guess if more people complain I can change the default fmask to be 0177
instead of 0077 but I want to see more complaints first. I personally find
the being able to execute behaviour better as I run things off the ntfs
partitions...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
AA> > To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
AA> > midnight commander (won't open executable files)
AA>
AA> Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
AA> the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
You probably misunderstood the problem - I cannot enter archive files (.tgz, .zip)
in mc if these files are marked as executable - mc just tries to execute them.
AA> I guess if more people complain I can change the default fmask to be 0177
AA> instead of 0077 but I want to see more complaints first. I personally find
AA> the being able to execute behaviour better as I run things off the ntfs
AA> partitions...
People using Linux usually keep data files on fat and ntfs permissions, not
executables (IMHO).
Regards,
Nerijus
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote:
>
>>Is this a good default?
>
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. It follows the logic of least
> surprise. In Windows all files are executable as there is no way to
> distinguish executables from non-executables due to lack of executable
> bit. NTFS on Linux has no way of telling the difference either and hence
> it makes sense to allow execution of all files.
>
> If you don't like it, use -o noexec,fmask=0111 and you will not have any
> files being executable.
>
>
>>IMHO you usually would not want to execute stuff off NTFS, and
>>if you do you can always just explicitly invoke using wine like:
>>`wine /ntfs/lookout.exe`
>
>
> No you couldn't.
>
why not? wine should be changed to allow this if
it is a limitation with it.
>>To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
>>midnight commander (won't open executable files)
>
>
> Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
> the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
Well by not opening I meant it tries to run them
which is sensible really. I would guess any unix
filemanager is going to have some issues with all
files having executable bits set.
Isn't there some kludge for vfat where it marks
*.{com,exe,bat} as executable?
>
>>ls colorizing
>
>
> I like green files. (-;
Well I hate them :-)
Also coloring is wrong in mc and probably other things.
>
>>shell tab completion
>
>
> Heh?!? Works for me. Fix your shell settings.
>
>
>>...
>
>
> Like what?
>
>
>>see:
>>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=100143416100009&r=1&w=2
>
>
> Read it. I still don't see any reason for not having x on files by
> default.
>
>
>>I think the default should be
>>rx for directories and r for files
>
>
> If you think so just use fmask to clear the x bit and be happy.
>
> I guess if more people complain I can change the default fmask to be 0177
> instead of 0077 but I want to see more complaints first. I personally find
> the being able to execute behaviour better as I run things off the ntfs
> partitions...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Anton
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Nerijus Baliunas wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
> AA> > To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
> AA> > midnight commander (won't open executable files)
> AA>
> AA> Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
> AA> the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
>
> You probably misunderstood the problem - I cannot enter archive files (.tgz, .zip)
> in mc if these files are marked as executable - mc just tries to execute them.
Ah, that is a bad thing. (I don't use mc as you may have guessed...)
> AA> I guess if more people complain I can change the default fmask to be 0177
> AA> instead of 0077 but I want to see more complaints first. I personally find
> AA> the being able to execute behaviour better as I run things off the ntfs
> AA> partitions...
>
> People using Linux usually keep data files on fat and ntfs permissions, not
> executables (IMHO).
Depends what you are doing and whether you use wine or not... I have no
idea what the percentages are...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote:
> >
> >>Is this a good default?
> >
> >
> > I don't see what's wrong with that. It follows the logic of least
> > surprise. In Windows all files are executable as there is no way to
> > distinguish executables from non-executables due to lack of executable
> > bit. NTFS on Linux has no way of telling the difference either and hence
> > it makes sense to allow execution of all files.
> >
> > If you don't like it, use -o noexec,fmask=0111 and you will not have any
> > files being executable.
> >
> >
> >>IMHO you usually would not want to execute stuff off NTFS, and
> >>if you do you can always just explicitly invoke using wine like:
> >>`wine /ntfs/lookout.exe`
> >
> >
> > No you couldn't.
> >
>
> why not? wine should be changed to allow this if
> it is a limitation with it.
>
> >>To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
> >>midnight commander (won't open executable files)
> >
> >
> > Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
> > the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
>
> Well by not opening I meant it tries to run them
> which is sensible really. I would guess any unix
> filemanager is going to have some issues with all
> files having executable bits set.
>
> Isn't there some kludge for vfat where it marks
> *.{com,exe,bat} as executable?
>
It used to be, under DOS, that ".COM" files were loaded and
"executed" even if they were text. Then, when the ".EXE" file
came out, it would be executed if the first two bytes were 'MZ' so
you could make a text file with the first two characters "MZ" and
save it as "CRASH.EXE" and that's what it would do. All ".BAT"
files were assumed to be interpreted by 'COMMAND.COM', the "shell",
as scripts. This means that you can make a ".BAT" file called
"COMMAND.BAT", with interesting results.
When FAT-32, NTFS, VFAT, Windozes file-system(s) were developed
all bets are off. Long file-names are the result of a 'container-file'
concept and anything goes.
So the only way to guess at these file's execution capabilities
is to read the name --and it's a bad guess.
If the files are NOT set to 'executable' as read by Linux, then samba
will not work. For the files to be visible to WIN/Clients, they
must have all bits set. This 'feature' can be used to make DOS/Win
files temporarily off-limits to WIN/Clients (like during a backup).
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Windows-2000/Professional isn't.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:08:30 +0000
Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NTFS 2.0.1 for kernel 2.5.7 is now available. This is a minor update,
> mainly to allow binaries to be executed by changing the default permissions
> on files to include the executable bit. This feature has often been
> requested by wine users so here it is. (-:
I thought that was a pretty good change, making the default permissions executable. After all, that's how FAT filesystems are mounted by default. I often wondered about that, -r-------- for regular files on the mounted NTFS volume.
I'm not at all interested in WINE (no desire to run Windows programs in Linux, I love the software I have) but I do sometimes store things on microsoft partitions and it's useful to be able to run an install script in place rather than copying the files and setting +x (e.g. Star Office installer .bin files)
By the way, I did try this new driver yesterday and did not experience any problems with it. I'm using this kernel right now. Behaviour as expected. I don't know what version of mc they are talking about, but in my version of mc ("The Midnight Commander 4.5.51") I can use the view command on any file on the NTFS partition without it trying to execute the file. The files are all showing in green, with the asterisk.
Grogan
I wrote:
>I don't know what version of mc they are talking about, but in my version of mc >("The Midnight Commander 4.5.51") I can use the view command on any file on >the NTFS partition without it trying to execute the file. The files are all showing in >green, with the asterisk.
Sorry for the second post, but I took a look at the .tar.gz issue in midnight commander. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the executable permission, the problem is that the filesystem isn't writable. I get the same flood of errors on the console trying to tar xvzf the file as I do in mc...
"Could not create file: No such file or directory"
So it's not a problem with mc. There's no problem if I use the --directory switch with the tar command to specify a writable location to extract to. I also can copy the same file, to my home directory and retain the same permissions, and extract it using mc just fine.
Grogan
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 09:13:38AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> If the files are NOT set to 'executable' as read by Linux, then samba
> will not work. For the files to be visible to WIN/Clients, they
> must have all bits set. This 'feature' can be used to make DOS/Win
> files temporarily off-limits to WIN/Clients (like during a backup).
>
Since when?
None of the of the data files on my samba server are marked executable, and
all are readable.
You probably have "map archive = yes" in mind, but that will *not* deny access if
the executable bit is set or not...
This is looking at the manual for smb.conf in 2.2.3a.
Mike
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:57:07PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote:
> > Is this a good default?
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that. It follows the logic of least
> surprise. In Windows all files are executable as there is no way to
> distinguish executables from non-executables due to lack of executable
> bit. NTFS on Linux has no way of telling the difference either and hence
> it makes sense to allow execution of all files.
The difference with NTFS is that there is a possibility to have unix permissions
working with it natively, with no extra visible files like with umsdos.
What are you going to do when unix permissions/ACLs are supported in Linux
NTFS? Default back to non executable?
How much extra work would it be to map the unix executable bits to a NTFS acl?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 09:13:38AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > If the files are NOT set to 'executable' as read by Linux, then samba
> > will not work. For the files to be visible to WIN/Clients, they
> > must have all bits set. This 'feature' can be used to make DOS/Win
> > files temporarily off-limits to WIN/Clients (like during a backup).
> >
>
> Since when?
>
> None of the of the data files on my samba server are marked executable, and
> all are readable.
>
> You probably have "map archive = yes" in mind, but that will *not*
> deny access if
> the executable bit is set or not...
>
> This is looking at the manual for smb.conf in 2.2.3a.
>
> Mike
>
Try it before you complain. I have samba servers all over the place.
If you have a DOS or VFAT file-system mounted and it is accessed by
samba as a "share", only the files that are executable will be seen
by the clients. Check it out.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Windows-2000/Professional isn't.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:42:20 -0500
Grogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>a bunch of misunderstood nonsense about midnight commander and .tar.gz archives.
Sorry folks, I do understand the issue now with midnight commander. It's when selecting an archive and hitting enter, to view the contents rather than extracting or just viewing a list of contents with the view command. It executes instead when it's +x. That was rather thick skulled of me and of course I can see the same behaviour in my mc when files are executable.
Shutting up now, and I'll think more carefully before posting in future,
Grogan
Nerijus Baliunas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...] Discussion about default fmask, mc, being able to run in place
> snipped
>
> People using Linux usually keep data files on fat and ntfs permissions, not
> executables (IMHO).
For the sake of another vote: Yes, I do use NTFS primarily for data
storage, and No, I don't like gratuitous x-bits. Not *at all*. Not
because I work with some specific software that should be "fixed", but
because I think it is quite b0rken to flag "executable" in the general
case.
What I would like to see (probably exists somewhere) is a (userland)
tool which can fire up an exec image residing in a readable (not
executable) file - that would take care of the "star office
installation" case, as well. If said tool was called "run" it would
have all semantics intuitively expected by me.
But even without "run" I'd be very much happier with x off by default
- those who want it should turn it on using mount -o fmask, not the
other way around.
Just my opinion.
So long,
Joe
--
"I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear
word processor."
-- Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning... was the command line"
On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 02:34, Joachim Breuer wrote:
> What I would like to see (probably exists somewhere) is a (userland)
> tool which can fire up an exec image residing in a readable (not
> executable) file - that would take care of the "star office
> installation" case, as well. If said tool was called "run" it would
> have all semantics intuitively expected by me.
>
You already have the program. It's called /lib/ld-linux.so.2
Joachim Breuer wrote:
> Nerijus Baliunas <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>[...] Discussion about default fmask, mc, being able to run in place
>> snipped
>>
>>People using Linux usually keep data files on fat and ntfs permissions, not
>>executables (IMHO).
>
>
> For the sake of another vote: Yes, I do use NTFS primarily for data
> storage, and No, I don't like gratuitous x-bits. Not *at all*.
Anton, there have been no votes the other way. What do you think now?
[snip]
> What I would like to see (probably exists somewhere) is a (userland)
> tool which can fire up an exec image residing in a readable (not
> executable) file
ln -s /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /bin/run
Padraig.
Hi!
> > AA> > To have all files executable breaks stuff like:
> > AA> > midnight commander (won't open executable files)
> > AA>
> > AA> Ouch, that is plain stupid... mc should be fixed. I open executables all
> > AA> the time and mc should automatically fire up a hexeditor.
> >
> > You probably misunderstood the problem - I cannot enter archive files (.tgz, .zip)
> > in mc if these files are marked as executable - mc just tries to execute them.
>
> Ah, that is a bad thing. (I don't use mc as you may have guessed...)
Well, not completely true. Let's see.
When you press enter, mc does default action. Default action is
execute, if file is executable
open tar gz archive, if file is named *.tgz
etc. It is actually quite reasonable. If you want to open executable
.tgz archive just do cd foo.tgz#utar.
Pavel
--
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa
At 16:20 01/04/02, Padraig Brady wrote:
>Joachim Breuer wrote:
>>Nerijus Baliunas <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:57:07 +0000 (GMT) Anton Altaparmakov
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...] Discussion about default fmask, mc, being able to run in place
>>> snipped
>>>
>>>People using Linux usually keep data files on fat and ntfs permissions, not
>>>executables (IMHO).
>>
>>For the sake of another vote: Yes, I do use NTFS primarily for data
>>storage, and No, I don't like gratuitous x-bits. Not *at all*.
>
>Anton, there have been no votes the other way. What do you think now?
I am tending towards a default fmask of 0177 now. I will change it for the
next release.
Happy? (-;
Cheers,
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/
ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/