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, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
