FW: patch for safer/saner permissions setting

[Jeremy Allison]

David Collier-Brown wrote:

>         Logically, I can argue that the special bits
>         should be honored/retained by Samba if the
>         ordinary create mask allows them, and forced
>         into place if the force masks sets them.
> 
>         That's sufficient, and probably necessary
>         (in the adademics' sense of "necessary").

Yeeesssss, sort of, but currently all examples are given
without including the special bits, with the result
that Samba never creates files with the group setuid
bit set (for BSD semantics on directories for example).

A counter arguement is that if an admin sets up directory
with the BSD inherit group semantics then, as there is no way
in the NT permissions dialog to set it then Samba should
just leave the special bits alone on a security chane SMB.

Jeremy.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
--------------------------------------------------------