[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: SVN CLI and Windows security

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-07-30 00:03:29 CEST

On 7/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > On 7/25/07, Brad Stiles <bradstiles@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> I ran into a situation today concerning the command line client and windows security. The problem is that the user (a build user performing automated builds on a Windows 2003 VM) attempted to check out a file to a network share and couldn't, apparently because that user doesn't have access to the share root, even though it does have access to the directory into which the file should be exported.
> >>
> >> The command I used was:
> >>
> >> svn export http://server/trunk/dir1/dir2/file.txt \\server\share\dir1\dir2\dir3\file.txt --non-interactive --force
> >>
> >> To which svn.exe responded:
> >>
> >> svn: Error resolving case of '\\server\share\dir1\dir2\dir3\file.txt'
> >>
> >> In that tree, the user has no rights to \\server\share\, but has read/write access to dir1 and below. If, as that user, I do 'dir \\server\share', I see nothing, but if I do 'dir \\server\share\dir1', I see everything just fine.
> >>
> >> Now, in our case, that shouldn't be a problem much longer because the network guys are in the process of changing the access rights on that directory; the build user really should have access there. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there might be a legitimate reason for such a restriction.
> >>
> >> Is there something we did wrong here (aside from the rights issue) that would have allowed the export to happen despite the access rights? FWIW, 'svn checkout' resulted in the same type of error.
> >>
> >> When the network guy saw it, he said, "Maybe they're using the old NT4 method of stepping through the tree, rather than going straight to the location specified." Is there something in whatever layer svn is using for this that accesses the tree step by step rather than as one entity? And is it worth "fixing" if it is a problem?
> >
> > Well, it's an error that finds its roots in a call to
> > apr_filepath_merge with an argument of APR_FILEPATH_TRUENAME. Looking
> > at that function, it calls apr_filepath_root, which tries to isolate
> > the root in order to see whether it actually exists. That scheme
> > breaks down when there are no read/write permissions.
> This presumes it's an error at all.

I didn't mean that. I meant to say it's an error *message* that ... (etc)

> The _TRUENAME flag tells us that we
> MUST use the canonical path. The *only* way to accomplish this is with
> read/traverse access through the file path.
> The arguements for this approach is that an app (such as a server) often
> needs to deal with the single proper name of a resource. Program Files
> may be Progra~1, it may also be Progra~2, or on netware, ProgramF.
> > I have no idea whether the APR project feels this is something worth
> > to be fixed, or even fixeable. I cc'ed their dev@ list, to make them
> > aware if the weren't already.
> Of course it won't be fixed, because it is not broken.

That's what I meant by fixeable. At first glance it looks rather
broken (in the Win32 api) that the only way to retrieve the canonical
path is to traverse the entire tree from that path up. But, alas,
that's not up for discussion here.

I hope Brad got his answer; I'll move on.

Thanks for your time, Bill.



To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 30 00:02:17 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.