inherit mode

Andy Bakun abakun at
Thu Sep 2 14:25:53 GMT 1999

David Lee wrote:

> I picked the name "inherit mode" because that was what "create ...",
> "force ...", "directory ..." seemed to use.

mode does seem more natural in this sense.

> I think we are all agreed that the "inherit mode" concept takes precedence
> over Samba's traditional mask/force concepts.  In other words, "force"
> (and "mask") are only invoked in the absence of "inherit mode".  (So
> "force" is not "forced" when "inherit mode" acts!  See what I mean about
> potentially misleading and confusing interpretations of words??)

I think a warning in the log would be nice if both are used.

> I think we have agreed on the behaviour of "inherit mode" (or whatever we
> call it):

Alias the parameter.  I understand's Jeremy use of the word "security", because
it's an NT-ism. but the files are not inheriting NT-style security -- the owner
and group of the file are not inherited.  When I think "security", I'm thinking
of the "security tab" in the file properties dialog, which includes users,
groups and permissions.

Also, this reminds me (because I just looked at the NT permissions dialog):

I looked at a file in the tmp directory, which has it's sticky bit on, so only
owners can delete files.  But the permissions dialog doesn't list the owner as
having "delete" permissions. I don't know if this was in the works, but if the
directory is writable, then "Everyone" should have the delete permission.
Although, showing the exact permissions in this dialog might confuse the issue
since there are permissions that you can't change directly on the file (like
the delete permission).


More information about the samba-technical mailing list