From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Keenan Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS should honour umask Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:42:24 +0100 Message-ID: <46684380.7080302@opcode-solutions.com> References: <466705F5.9000702@opcode-solutions.com> <524f69650706061723i3e065d0y83739e50d986a06f@mail.gmail.com> <4667AE70.7090800@opcode-solutions.com> <524f69650706071001q30a818eepfef98010258b14f7@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org To: Steve French Return-path: In-Reply-To: <524f69650706071001q30a818eepfef98010258b14f7@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-cifs-client-bounces+glfc-linux-cifs-client=gmane.org@lists.samba.org Errors-To: linux-cifs-client-bounces+glfc-linux-cifs-client=gmane.org@lists.samba.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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