Re: [PATCH 1/3] cifs: make overriding of ownership conditional on new mount options

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 19:15:40 -0500
Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Layton<[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:12:56 -0500
> > Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>debug message to note when the user specified
> >> "forceuid" and Unix extensions were not negotiated? or perhaps that is
> >> unimportant ... and the more important case of "they specified a uid
> >> or gid, but the server's uids don't seem to match the client uids" and
> >> should have specified forceuid?)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > I don't see any point in warning when unix extensions aren't
> > negotiated. The way I look at it is this -- when the owner can't be
> > determined then we use the default uid/gid for the share. The new
> > options just force this even when the uid/gid can be determined. When
> > they're specified on a share where we can't determine the ownership,
> > then they're just ignored.
> 
> OK ... that logic makes sense.
> 

I'm working on a manpage update for this, and a thought strikes me.

Would it be better to replace these new options (forceuid/forcegid)
with a single option "forceperm" or something that not only forces the
uid/gid but also forces the mode to the file_mode/dir_mode ?

-- 
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>