Title: #457: ipa: Removal of umask(0) in selinux_child
I'd like to revive this PR with a different view on the topic.
I tend to prefer to keep the umask() calls, not as a workaround, but as a precaution.
Since we expect the libsemange calls to create files or directories and change the umask
of the process saving and resetting 'our' umask would protect us from potential
issue in the future where libsemange sets the umask() but for whatever reasons it is not
set back to its original value.
If we can agree on this view I wonder if @amitkumar50 would like to update that patch so
that only the comment is replaced with a new one explaining why umask() is used?
See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/457#issuecomment-494749209