Bluehost.com Web Hosting $6.95

Re: [Samba] Samba Posix ACL and classical files permissions

This is a discussion on Re: [Samba] Samba Posix ACL and classical files permissions within the Samba forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; With "no ACL present" i meant that no acl entries are stored for that directory (besides the normal ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Networking and Network Related > Samba

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2006
Albe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: [Samba] Samba Posix ACL and classical files permissions

With "no ACL present" i meant that no acl entries are stored for that
directory (besides the normal posix triade).

Just the three classical POSIX entries. This is the normal case for
newly created directory under linux samba host, for example.

Anyway, to make it short, what's the point of showing three empty
entries under windows security panel (when those entries do have
permissions set)?
i just wondered why it has to be like this since i find it very
counterintuitive to the user.
It should just be like: if a permission entry (of any nature) does
exist and has a meaning, list it and show the right flags; otherwise
do not list them.
What is shown in the security panel should have a precise meaning in
terms of coherency with the file or directory permissions and user
interface.

I hope to have explained myself better.


Albe



Il giorno 04/gen/06, alle ore 20:46, Gerald (Jerry) Carter ha scritto:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Albe wrote:
>
>> Well, when i first installed samba without POSIX ACLs,
>> it simply showed the classical rwx permissions of the
>> owner, group and others as the corresponding permissions
>> in the "allow" column of the security panel.
>>
>> I would suggest to consider ACLs if present, otherwise
>> to show the classical permissions, which i think reflects
>> the real behavior in linux.

>
> Hmmm...but in your original post, you posted an ACL on
> a directory. So what do you mean by no ACL present?
> If you enable acls in smbd, smb.conf and when mounting
> the fs, ACLs are present.
>
> If you mean, no default named mask for the owner,
> how can you tell between a file that has not had such
> an ACE assigned and one that has had the ACE explicitly
> removed?
>
> Sorry, but what you are asking for is too ambigous. If
> you want ACLs, you have to deal with the Windows security
> model which distinguishes between an ACE that applies
> to the folder itself and one that applies to any entries
> within the folder. I don't see any way around this.
>
>
>
>
> cheers, jerry
> ================================================== ===================
> Alleviating the pain of Windows(tm) ------- http://www.samba.org
> Centeris ----------- http://www.centeris.com
> "There's an anonymous coward in all of us." --anonymous
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDvCYDIR7qMdg1EfYRAuJ+AJ4+OcwZAkS3dOYwBMoIpF 0u6gNSYwCgpOVR
> k3AIjSviJc61j4O/5/NJEyk=
> =FRWQ
> -----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 08:15 AM.


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