On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 23:47 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting m...@nikosapi.org (m...@nikosapi.org): > > Package: samba > > Version: 2:3.2.5-4lenny2 > > Severity: normal > > > > After upgrading to lenny (from etch) it seems that the "force create mode" > > option no longer works. However, if I downgrade samba to 3.0.24-6etch10 the > > option works as it should. Here's an example: > > > > nikos...@kubuntubox:~$ touch testfile; chmod 600 testfile > > nikos...@kubuntubox:~$ mv testfile /mnt/smb/archives/ > > > > teh-server:~# ls -l /mnt/md1/archives/testfile > > -rw------- 1 samba samba 0 2009-04-23 11:23 /mnt/md1/archives/testfile > > > > When using the older version of samba, the permissions of that file would > > have been -rw-rw-r-- which is consistent with what I have in my config file. > > > What happens when you copy the file ? > > I see the same behaviour than the one you see, with 3.3.3. However, > copying the file ends up with the right permissions. > > I'm not entirely sure that what you see is a bug, actually. After all, > when moving a file, you expect permissions to remain as they are. > >
The same thing occurs even if I copy a file. I'm pretty sure this is a bug, in the smb.conf manpage it says that the mode given to the "force create mode" gets OR'd with the file's permissions. This guarantees that you'll always have at *least* whatever "force create mode" is set to. The way I understand this is: "create mask" strips away permissions and "force create mode" adds them, no? An example should clear this up: 1. File's original mode: -rwx---rw- (0706) 2. "create mask": -rw-rw-r-- (0664) 3. Resulting mode (AND of 1,2): -rw----r-- (0604) 4. "force create mode": -rw-rw---- (0660) 5. Final mode (OR of 3,4): -rw-rw-r-- (0664) Am I wrong in thinking that this is how it's supposed to work? nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
