file_mode, dir_mode ignored when unix extensions are negotiated?
Subsystems (2)
Do we ignore file_mode and dir_mode options when the unix extensions have been negotiated? On a 3.1 based kernel, I see file_mode, dir_mode options are not being honoured when mounting a Samba Server (Linux) with unix extensions enabled. So, the expected behavior is to get the mode from the server and not allow the client to override the modes?
This behavior looks different from the smbfs behavior. I couldn't recollect or find from mailing list threads why it has done to be this way. Could someone please enlighten me?
Thanks
Suresh
(Sorry about the self-reply)
Quoted 10 lines · Suresh Jayaraman
Do we ignore
file_modeanddir_modeoptions when the unix extensions have been negotiated? On a 3.1 based kernel, I seefile_mode,dir_modeoptions are not being honoured when mounting a Samba Server (Linux) with unix extensions enabled. So, the expected behavior is to get the mode from the server and not allow the client to override the modes?This behavior looks different from the smbfs behavior. I couldn't recollect or find from mailing list threads why it has done to be this way. Could someone please enlighten me?
http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux-cifs-client/2006-December/001627.html
Quoted 1 line
From this thread, the reason seems to be that we don't want to change
the behavior as there would be users who might want to use the uid/gid/mode from the server when Unix Extensions are enabled.
So, I'd assume that the rationale remains the same unless someone tells me that is wrong.
Thanks
Suresh