file_mode, dir_mode ignored when unix extensions are negotiated?

file_mode, dir_mode ignored when unix extensions are negotiated?

[Suresh Jayaraman]

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

Re: file_mode, dir_mode ignored when unix extensions are negotiated?

[Suresh Jayaraman]

(Sorry about the self-reply)

On 07/30/2012 05:41 PM, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
> 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?
> 

http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux-cifs-client/2006-December/001627.html

>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