Questions about smbd option "strict rename"
metze at samba.org
Sun Nov 29 09:59:16 UTC 2015
>> Yeah, that looks much closer !
>>> I'm not fully happy with the flag names yet, I think we should prefix
>>> them with VFS_ so they won't collide with flags we may add later on
>>> for SMB2/3 UNIX extensions.
>> Hmmm. Don't like VFS_ as they're not really VFS. How about
>> FSP_ prefix as they're more to do with fsp open handles ?
> perfect, thanks!
> Updated patchset attached. I've added a test that verifies both
> possibilities: deny rename if POSIX rename cap is not enabled, permit
> rename if POSIX rename cap is enabled via AAPL/vfs_fruit.
Can we make change from bool posix_open to uint8_t posix_flags first?
Maybe with a #define posix_open posix_flags.
That means we would not change the structure and can backport this more
And existing vfs modules for existing releases won't break at
For master we can have a change to uint64_t and remove the define.
Can we also have a test with 2 connections, one with aapl and one without
and test the interaction between both against an apple server.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the samba-technical