Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932801AbXASBAt (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:00:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932809AbXASBAs (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:00:48 -0500 Received: from colo.lackof.org ([198.49.126.79]:58056 "EHLO colo.lackof.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932801AbXASBAs (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:00:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:00:40 -0700 From: dann frazier To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Santiago Garcia Mantinan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports Message-ID: <20070119010040.GR16053@colo> References: <20070117100030.GA11251@clandestino.aytolacoruna.es> <20070117215519.GX24090@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070117215519.GX24090@1wt.eu> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r782 (Debian) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1509 Lines: 41 On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:55:19PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > @@ -505,8 +510,13 @@ > mnt->file_mode = (oldmnt->file_mode & S_IRWXUGO) | S_IFREG; > mnt->dir_mode = (oldmnt->dir_mode & S_IRWXUGO) | S_IFDIR; > > - mnt->flags = (oldmnt->file_mode >> 9); > + mnt->flags = (oldmnt->file_mode >> 9) | SMB_MOUNT_UID | > + SMB_MOUNT_GID | SMB_MOUNT_FMODE | SMB_MOUNT_DMODE; > } else { > + mnt->file_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP | > + S_IROTH | S_IXOTH | S_IFREG; > + mnt->dir_mode = mnt->dir_mode = S_IRWXU | S_IRGRP | S_IXGRP | > + S_IROTH | S_IXOTH | S_IFDIR; > if (parse_options(mnt, raw_data)) > goto out_bad_option; > } > > > See above ? mnt->dir_mode being assigned 3 times. It still *seems* to do the > expected thing like this but I wonder if the initial intent was > exactly this. Wow - sorry about that, that's certainly a cut & paste error. But the end result appears to match current 2.6, which was the intent. > Also, would not it be necessary to add "|S_IFLNK" to the file_mode ? Maybe > what I say is stupid, but it's just a guess. I really don't know the correct answer to that, I was merely copying the 2.6 flags. [Still working on getting a 2.4 smbfs test system up...] -- dann frazier - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/