samba - Nov 2010 - Issues with default ACLs in created objects not including parent's owner: old bug or setup issue?

I have recurrent issue with ACLs on a server that's running samba
3.2.15 (this is a Debian lenny server and we're not ready, yet, to
upgrade it...we just upgraded samba from 3.2.5 to 3.2.15+security fixes).

If a "foo" directory, owned by "joe", has "joe and
"jim" authorized to
write to it through the filesystem's ACLs (and both in "foo"
default
ACL), and "joe" create a "bar" subdir in this
directory.....then "joe"
himself is not added to the default ACL of "foo/bar". He can still
write to "bar" (as he's the directory owner)....but any file or
dir
created by *jim* in foo/bar will not have write access for "joe".

I seem to remember this was an issue fixed....somewhere along 3.4 or
3.5 development cycles. However, I couldn't find any relevant bug
report. Probably because my life is not driven by Bugzilla and I'm not
good searching with it.

So, would anyone remember about this being a bug.....or could that be
a local setup issue and some mysterious stanza missing in our setup?

On 14:30:30 wrote Christian PERRIER:
> I have recurrent issue with ACLs on a server that's running samba
> 3.2.15 (this is a Debian lenny server and we're not ready, yet, to
> upgrade it...we just upgraded samba from 3.2.5 to 3.2.15+security
> fixes).
>
> If a "foo" directory, owned by "joe", has "joe and
"jim" authorized
> to write to it through the filesystem's ACLs (and both in
"foo"
> default ACL), and "joe" create a "bar" subdir in this
> directory.....then "joe" himself is not added to the default ACL
of
> "foo/bar". He can still write to "bar" (as he's the
directory
> owner)....but any file or dir created by *jim* in foo/bar will not
> have write access for "joe".
show us "getfacl foo" and the share section in smb.conf
> I seem to remember this was an issue fixed....somewhere along 3.4 or
> 3.5 development cycles. However, I couldn't find any relevant bug
> report. Probably because my life is not driven by Bugzilla and I'm
> not good searching with it.
>
> So, would anyone remember about this being a bug.....or could that be
> a local setup issue and some mysterious stanza missing in our setup?


-- 

Regards
	Harry Jede