change_sacl_perms() and ACLs from Solaris to 2.6 Linux

[Andrew Gideon]

I've found an error: ACLs are not properly preserved when a file is moved
from Solaris to a 2.6 Linux (I'm testing using CentOS 4 update 3 plus
updates).  This is using 2.6.8 built with the acl patch on both platforms.

The file on the source Solaris machine:

[truffle:/opt]# getfacl /xxx/x

# file: /xxx/x
# owner: root
# group: other
user::rw-
user:httpd:r-x          #effective:r--
group::r--              #effective:r--
mask:rw-
other:---


and on the destination:

[root at backup1 truffle]# getfacl /backup/truffle/xxx.10/x
getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
# file: backup/truffle/xxx.10/x
# owner: root
# group: bin
user::rw-
user:407:r-x                    #effective:r--
group::r--
mask::r--
other::---

The problem only appears to arise when the "main" group and mask bits are
not the same.  The data is received correctly, but is "mangled" by
change_sacl_perms(), which is being called within set_acl().

The piece of code in change_sacl_perms() which is causing the problem is
apparently:

	                case SMB_ACL_MASK:
	#ifndef ACLS_NEED_MASK
	                        /* mask is only empty when we don't need it. */
	                        if (racl->mask == ACL_NO_ENTRY)
	                                break;
	#endif
	                        COE2( store_access_in_entry,((mode >> 3) & 7, entry) );
	                        break;

As far as I can tell, this is setting the mask value based upon the file's
group mode.  But I don't know why that would be desired.  So I'm not sure
what to do to fix this problem.

Any help, please?

I'm wondering if the test is wrong, and if it shouldn't be:

	racl->mask != ACL_NO_ENTRY

but that's purely guesswork.

Thanks...

	Andrew