chmod via unix extensions cut by "create mask"/"directory mask" - intended?

[Simo]

On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 12:35 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> We already correctly pass in the create-type
> for these cases from all callers (the calling
> code checks for existence first).
> 
> In addition there are some missing FCHMOD/FCHOWN/LCHOWN
> calls in that code path I've taken the liberty of
> tidying up in 2 extra patches if the client passed in
> a valid file handle rather than a path (they're not security
> issues as there is no elevation of privilege).
> 
> Complete patchset follows. Push if you're
> happy and I'll create a bug and backport
> for 4.1.0 and 4.0.next.
> 
> Cheers,

[PATCH 1/3] Fix the erroneous masking of chmod requests via the UNIX
extensions.

Please add some more meat in the comment about why PERM_EXISTING_FILE
and  PERM_EXISTING_DIRa re not handled.

Otherwise ACK
Reviewed-by: Simo Sorce <idra at samba.org>


[PATCH 2/3] Allow UNIX extensions client to act on open fsp instead of
pathname if available.

ACK
Reviewed-by: Simo Sorce <idra at samba.org>


[PATCH 3/3] Fix the UNIX extensions CHOWN calls to use FCHOWN if
available, else LCHOWN.

two instances of:
+			/* UNIX calls always operate on symlinks. */

I think you mean 'UNIX Extension calls'
please fix the comment, otherwise ACK
Reviewed-by: Simo Sorce <idra at samba.org>


Simo.