From sacadmin Thu Mar 12 09:37:39 2009 Received: from sac.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGbdAq011170; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jb25718@localhost) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) id n2CGbd0A011166; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jordan Brown Message-Id: <200903121637.n2CGbd0A011166@sac.sfbay.sun.com> To: PSARC-record@sac.sfbay.sun.com Cc: cifs-eng@sun.com Subject: More Restrictive Default Permissions on smbfs Mounts [PSARC/2009/174 FastTrack timeout 03/13/2009] Status: RO Content-Length: 585 Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: More Restrictive Default Permissions on smbfs Mounts 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Author: Gordon Ross 1.3 Date of This Document: 12 March, 2009 4. Technical Description See the case directory for more detail 6. Resources and Schedule 6.4. Steering Committee requested information 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: ON 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From Jordan.Brown@Sun.COM Thu Mar 12 09:42:17 2009 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGgHLk011772 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (sca-es-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.133]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2CGgHuT042649 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2CGgCI4028048 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGE00700JKKD200@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.145.155.183] ([unknown] [129.145.155.183]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGE006A9JQBXHK0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:42:11 -0700 From: Jordan Brown Subject: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions Sender: Jordan.Brown@Sun.COM To: PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) Status: RO Content-Length: 3632 I'm sponsoring the following for fast-track approval. The need for this case came up at rather the last minute, and to maintain planned push schedules we need a very short timeout - I'm asking for 14:00 Pacific tomorrow, Friday March 13, the end of the business day on the East Coast where the engineer is. Thank you for your indulgence. 1. Technical Description More restrictive default permissions on smbfs mounts (CR 6800703) 2. Details 2.1 Background and motivation The Solaris CIFS Client [PSARC 2005/695] provides the ability to mount CIFS shares from Windows-compatible servers on Solaris. When you mount a remote file system using the CIFS client, you supply a username and password. All access to the remote file system is done *as the mount owner*, not as the user making the current file system request. (This is arguably a weakness in the design of smbfs, but fixing it is a large project.) If you don't want other people accessing the remote server as you, you have to arrange that the permissions on the mount don't allow them to. As documented in mount_smbfs(1m), the existing permissions on the mount point (which, mind you, must be owned by the user doing the mount) are used as the defaults. This could easily lead to a user being surprised that others may access the server as that user. This is also arguably not "secure by default". We propose to change the default "fileperms" to 0700. per: CR 6800703 smbfs default permissions may lead to surprises The release binding is: Patch. 3. Interface table (no change) 4. Documentation The mount_smbfs(1m) man page will be updated by CR (TBD) Here is a summary of the nsmbrc(4) changes: Current text: dirperms=octaltriplet Specifies the permissions to be assigned to direc- tories. The value must be specified as an octal tri- plet, such as 755. The default value for the direc- tory mode adds the execute permission. Note that these permissions have no relation to the rights granted by the CIFS server. fileperms=octaltriplet Specifies the permissions to be assigned to files. The value must be specified as an octal triplet, such as 644. The default value for the file mode is taken from the mount point and adds the read permis- sion. Note that these permissions have no relation to the rights granted by the CIFS server. Proposed text: dirperms=octaltriplet Specifies the permissions to be assigned to direc- tories. The value must be specified as an octal tri- plet, such as 755. The default value for the direc- tory mode is taken from the fileperms setting, with execute permission added where fileperms has read. Note that these permissions have no relation to the rights granted by the CIFS server. fileperms=octaltriplet Specifies the permissions to be assigned to files. The value must be specified as an octal triplet, such as 644. The default value is 700. Note that these permissions have no relation to the rights granted by the CIFS server. 5. References http://sac.sfbay/PSARC/2005/695/ http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2240/mount-smbfs-1m 6. Resources and Schedule n/a From Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Thu Mar 12 09:49:35 2009 Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGnZlb011954 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2CGlvgl022287; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:47:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n2CGlvMp022286; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:47:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:47:57 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Jordan Brown Cc: PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions Message-ID: <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Status: RO Content-Length: 398 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:42:11AM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote: > We propose to change the default "fileperms" to 0700. per: > CR 6800703 smbfs default permissions may lead to surprises > The release binding is: Patch. 'fileperms' or 'dirperms'? If the former, why user 'x' permission? And why still leave a default dirperms that allows other users to see one's file names? Nico -- From Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM Thu Mar 12 09:54:54 2009 Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-01.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.118]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGssea012502 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2CGsrxj058968 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2CGsrMu022846 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:54:53 GMT MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGE00200JR9N800@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:54:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([unknown] [75.67.12.95]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGE00HZPKBBJL10@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:54:48 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:54:46 -0400 From: Gordon Ross Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions In-reply-to: <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> Sender: Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM To: Nicolas Williams Cc: Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> Status: RO Content-Length: 560 > 'fileperms' or 'dirperms'? If the former, why user 'x' permission? And > why still leave a default dirperms that allows other users to see one's > file names? First, to clarify, this question is about things that are NOT changed by this proposal: the owner permissions, and defaulting the dirperms from the fileperms (with x bits added). The only thing that changes is the default fileperms, which before was taken from the mounted-on directory (typically 755) and after this change the default would be the fixed value 700. Hope that helps. Gordon From Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM Thu Mar 12 09:58:16 2009 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGwFfR012641 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2CGwFFD056683 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2CGwFGE013076 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:58:15 GMT MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGE00J00K5JME00@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:58:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([unknown] [75.67.12.95]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGE00M9OKH1PV20@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:58:13 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:58:11 -0400 From: Gordon Ross Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions In-reply-to: <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> Sender: Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM To: Nicolas Williams Cc: Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> Status: RO Content-Length: 314 I forgot to answer the "why 'x' perms?" part (for files). Two reasons: (1) to avoid surprise - what you normally see now under an smbfs mount is both files and directories are 755, and (2) if you want to be able to run anything out of smbfs, you'll need execute permission, same as with filesystems like pcfs. From Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Thu Mar 12 09:59:26 2009 Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CGxQVQ012659 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2CGvmmE022307; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:57:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n2CGvmHK022306; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:57:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:57:48 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Gordon Ross Cc: Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions Message-ID: <20090312165747.GH9992@Sun.COM> References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Status: RO Content-Length: 473 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:58:11PM -0400, Gordon Ross wrote: > I forgot to answer the "why 'x' perms?" part (for files). > Two reasons: (1) to avoid surprise - what you normally see now > under an smbfs mount is both files and directories are 755, and > (2) if you want to be able to run anything out of smbfs, you'll > need execute permission, same as with filesystems like pcfs. Ah, I figured, but wasn't sure. Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700? From Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM Thu Mar 12 10:04:20 2009 Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-01.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.118]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CH4K36012821 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2CH4Jhj003663 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2CH4J8L028394 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:04:19 GMT MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGE00900J384D00@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:04:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.6] ([unknown] [75.67.12.95]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGE000RJKR0VK70@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:04:12 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:04:10 -0400 From: Gordon Ross Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions In-reply-to: <20090312165747.GH9992@Sun.COM> Sender: Gordon.Ross@Sun.COM To: Nicolas Williams Cc: Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <1236877450.1129.45.camel@dell6300gwr> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> <20090312165747.GH9992@Sun.COM> Status: RO Content-Length: 396 > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700? They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e. if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms will be 750. If they don't specify either one, the default dirperms will be 700. Again, that part of the functionality is not changed by this proposal. From Nicolas.Williams@sun.com Thu Mar 12 10:05:25 2009 Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CH5PGN012840 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2CH3neK022330; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n2CH3mKd022329; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:03:48 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Gordon Ross Cc: Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions Message-ID: <20090312170348.GK9992@Sun.COM> References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> <20090312165747.GH9992@Sun.COM> <1236877450.1129.45.camel@dell6300gwr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236877450.1129.45.camel@dell6300gwr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Status: RO Content-Length: 488 On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:04:10PM -0400, Gordon Ross wrote: > > > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700? > > They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever > turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e. > if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms > will be 750. If they don't specify either one, the default > dirperms will be 700. > > Again, that part of the functionality is not changed by > this proposal. Ah, thanks. From carlsonj@phorcys.east.sun.com Thu Mar 12 10:10:25 2009 Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CHAOZ2012916 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2CHAMti023242; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n2CHAMp2023239; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:10:22 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18873.16894.530637.646966@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:10:22 -0400 From: James Carlson To: Gordon Ross Cc: Nicolas Williams , Jordan Brown , PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions In-Reply-To: <1236877450.1129.45.camel@dell6300gwr> References: <49B93B63.2000800@sun.com> <20090312164756.GE9992@Sun.COM> <1236876886.1129.37.camel@dell6300gwr> <1236877091.1129.40.camel@dell6300gwr> <20090312165747.GH9992@Sun.COM> <1236877450.1129.45.camel@dell6300gwr> X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1 Status: RO Content-Length: 897 Gordon Ross writes: > > > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700? > > They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever > turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e. > if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms > will be 750. If they don't specify either one, the default > dirperms will be 700. I'm guessing the (unchanged) logic is something like: dirperms = fileperms; if (fileperms & 0600) dirperms |= 0100; if (fileperms & 0060) dirperms |= 0010; if (fileperms & 0006) dirperms |= 0001; > Again, that part of the functionality is not changed by > this proposal. OK; that sounds good to me. +1 -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 From gww@eng.sun.com Thu Mar 12 10:11:02 2009 Received: from dm-eng-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-eng-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.32]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CHB2Y1012933 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marduk.eng.sun.com (marduk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.108.224]) by dm-eng-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2CHB1Xw004088; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from marduk.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by marduk.eng.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2CHBQMA003905; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gww@localhost) by marduk.eng.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.11/Submit) id n2CHBQie003904; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:11:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary Winiger Message-Id: <200903121711.n2CHBQie003904@marduk.eng.sun.com> To: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com, Gordon.Ross@sun.com Subject: Re: 2009/174 VERY SHORT TIMEOUT smbfs mount permissions Cc: Jordan.Brown@sun.com, PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Status: RO Content-Length: 427 > > Also, why should dirperms default to 755 instead of 700? > > They're not. The default dirperms are derived from whatever > turns out to be the fileperms setting, plus X bits. i.e. > if the user specifies fileperms=640, the default dirperms > will be 750. If they don't specify either one, the default > dirperms will be 700. With this being clear. The owner doesn't set permissions, the default is 700. +1 Gary.. From Jordan.Brown@Sun.COM Fri Mar 13 15:30:24 2009 Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (dm-sfbay-02.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.31]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2DMUOp9024405 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (sca-es-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.43.132]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n2DMUOu6022749 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2DMUJ3D020312 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGG00I00UDNWW00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [129.145.155.183] ([unknown] [129.145.155.183]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGG0037RUIIBD50@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:18 -0700 From: Jordan Brown Subject: 2009/174 smbfs mount permissions - timed out Sender: Jordan.Brown@Sun.COM To: PSARC-ext@sac.sfbay.sun.com Message-id: <49BADE7A.5040506@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) Status: RO Content-Length: 247 The (very short) timer having expired, all comments having been apparently adequately responded-to, and a couple of +1s having been received, this case has timed out and is now approved. Thank you for your indulgence in the short review cycle.