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

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Jeff Layton<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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:
>> > 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 ?

I don't think so.  I have heard of a few use cases where users want
'to override the owner (the "home directory mount" use case) returned
by the server but keep the permissions on files (because in this use
case the files are mostly owned by the same user but the server and
client don't use the same uid for that user. Once the uid is corrected
by force uid, the actual perms make sense)



-- 
Thanks,

Steve