Bluehost.com Web Hosting $6.95

[Samba] Re: [Possible BUG] Samba v3.0.20b and permissions

This is a discussion on [Samba] Re: [Possible BUG] Samba v3.0.20b and permissions within the Samba forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Gasch wrote: > hi list, > > i experienced a weird behaviour of ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Networking and Network Related > Samba

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2005
Gerald
 
Posts: n/a
Default [Samba] Re: [Possible BUG] Samba v3.0.20b and permissions

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Gasch wrote:
> hi list,
>
> i experienced a weird behaviour of samba in the latest versions
> (3.0.20[a,b]) on XFS:
>
> directory:
>
> /data (owner=iso,group=edv)
> permissions: 2770
>
> if i put a file in there with permissions 644 (owner=root,group=edv) i
> cannot delete it. windows tells even tells me, that it's readonly (read
> only bit set). and that's the only difference: 3.0.14a doesn't show the
> file as read only.


This has been a debated issues on the technical list. There's a
new parameter in 3.0.21pre1 called 'map read only'. Let me summarize
it like this.

In the absence of 'store dos attributes = yes' and the ability
to represent DOS attribute bits separately from permission bits,
we have two choices.

(a) May the read only DOS attrib bit to the inverse of the
user write bit (this is what we did prior to the 3.0.20 series),
or

(b) represent the read only attribute based on whether the
user can actually write to the file.

If the 'R' DOS attribute is set, Windows will not allow you
to delete the file IIRC which is probably what you are hitting.
In 3.0.21pre1 'map read only = yes' should give you 3.0.14a behavior.

The problem in the current 3.0.20 behavior (which might be
considered a bug) is that we do not take the parent directory
permissions into account when determining whether the user
has write access or not to a given file. And hence this is
another argument to stay away from user space access checks.
But we have no choice with the changes in WinXP sp2 and file
deletion.

Does this help explain the behavior?





cheers, jerry
================================================== ===================
Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"There's an anonymous coward in all of us." --anonymous
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDV6kVIR7qMdg1EfYRAlfkAJ9lTSgNasw6zs9QhxfNWC e4s8vuYgCfZBTc
d3C1mpsyuyqN23QBSfEavs4=
=rUnL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0