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

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 06:51:46PM -0400, simo wrote:
> 
> 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>

Made these review requests - thanks !

Jeremy.