Bug#310982: plan to include in sarge 2.4 update
Dear sirs,
It's been a long time since I've made those patches but I have never
known why the user level patches were not applied. I still think they
are necessary.
Haroldo
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 19:27 -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:51:24AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I am a bit concerned by the comment in the link you posted:
> >
> > To fully work, some modifications are needed to samba smbmount.c and
> > smbmnt.c files. Those patches are available at Samba and Kernel Bug
> > Tracker pages.
> > After those patches, if the user do not supply any of the parameters a
> > bove,
> > the uid, gid, file_mode and dir_mode on the server will be used by the
> > client.
> >
> > Did I understand correctly we would need to also patch samba ?
>
> (Haroldo: complete history of this discussion is available at
> http://bugs.debian.org/310982)
>
> hey Bill - sorry for the delay, I put this on the back burner while I
> tried to get my etch packages into a releaseable state.
>
> I didn't notcie the note about the userspace patches initially, thanks
> for pointing it out. Here's what I can decipher about their purpose,
> based upon code reading (I've cc'd the author so he can correct me if
> I've misunderstood):
>
> The kernel patch has changed the behavior to honor mount options if
> specified instead of always relying on the remote server. The issue
> with that is that smbmount always passes these options to the kernel,
> even if not specified by the user. The smbmount patch changees that by
> only passing these options if the user included them. With this
> change, the user can omit these options if they want to fallback to
> the values provided by the remote server.
>
> If this reading is correct, I don't think its necessary for us to
> perform an security update of samba - in fact, it maybe risky to
> do so. Though less flexible, it seems safer to default to the
> locally formulated values than to use what the remote server provides.
>
> Also note that the userspace patches have not gone upstream (google
> returns no record of them being submitted), but the kernel one
> did. So, a kernel-only update would make sarge's behavior consistent
> with etch.
>
> The downside is that any sarge users who might be relying on the
> use-the-server-provided-value behavior will no longer have that
> option. I don't understand this case enough to know if it has any
> practical implications. I would guess it means something like if user
> dannf had mounted vorlon's share w/o any mount options, current sarge
> would make those files owned by vorlon locally - but with just this
> kernel patch they'd now be owned by dannf? Unless someone can explain
> this authoritatively, I guess we'll just need to test it.
>
Reply to: