Re: [PATCH] CIFS should honour umask

Re: [PATCH] CIFS should honour umask

[Steve French]

For the non-unix case (e.g. Windows servers) the mode will be taken
from the default specified on the mount. I am not sure if we also
should add code to also honor umask in that case.

I am not sure how common it is to change umask to different values in
different processes which would access the same mount.

Thoughts?

> Steve French wrote:
> > Thanks - it looks almost right but you missed mknod case and your
> > patch had some whitespace/formatting problems.
> >
> > Could you try the following and make sure it works for you?  If so
> > will merge.

Re: [PATCH] CIFS should honour umask

[Matt Keenan]

Steve French wrote:
> For the non-unix case (e.g. Windows servers) the mode will be taken
> from the default specified on the mount. I am not sure if we also
> should add code to also honor umask in that case.
>
I don't think it would be necessary to add code for the windows case, we
should just rely on windows semantics (with acl if supplied) for pure
windows mounts.
> I am not sure how common it is to change umask to different values in
> different processes which would access the same mount.
>
I think if we are going to use umask we should use it the way it is used
in Unix, i.e. tagged to the process. I realise that in some
circumstances that having a mount wide umask would be handy, however if
we are going to apply unix style semantics we should stick to the unix
style process bound umask; i.e. the method of least suprise.

Matt

-- 
Matt Keenan
OpCode Solutions