Hi,
I have a Samba PDC (Version 3.6.6) backed by LDAP and a number of Linux
Samba domain memebers (security = domain).
On the PDC I have ACLs configured and all this is working as expected.
On the domain members however, I have ACLs also enabled and while they
work, they only seem to work if I m
Hi MarvinI just tested it like this:-Made a domain group called staff.
getent group gives: staff:*:21114:lynn2,steve2-Domain users steve2 and
lynn2 are members of staff-Made a share in smb.conf:[shared]
path = /home/shared read only = No-Set the ACL on
/home/shared: chown root:sta
Hi MarvinI just tested it like this:-Made a domain group called staff.
getent group gives: staff:*:21114:lynn2,steve2-Domain users steve2 and
lynn2 are members of staff-Made a share in smb.conf:[shared]
path = /home/shared read only = No-Set the ACL on
/home/shared: chown root:sta
Am 28.03.2013 09:40, schrieb Quintus:
Am Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:38:48 +0100
schrieb steve :
WTF? Where did the write access for the group go?
Hi Marvin
Hi Steve,
Just a thought but I found out the hard way that when there are acl's
set, e.g. in your file called test2, the -rw-r- bit of the
Am Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:38:48 +0100
schrieb steve :
> > WTF? Where did the write access for the group go?
> Hi Marvin
Hi Steve,
> Just a thought but I found out the hard way that when there are acl's
> set, e.g. in your file called test2, the -rw-r- bit of the
> listing bit bears little resem
On 26/03/13 15:25, Quintus wrote:
--
(1048) [15:04:10 quintus@hades] /mnt
% touch test2
(1049) [15:04:41 quintus@hades] /mnt
% ls -ahl
total 4.0K
drwxrws---+ 2 quintus 10020 Mar 26 15:04 .
drwxr-xr-x 20 rootroot 4.0K Mar 19 17
Hi there,
I’ve been trying to get my head around a problem I have with Samba.
I’ve set up Samba 3.6.13 on a Raspberry Pi with Arch Linux ARM on it and
let it serve a couple of folders from an attached external ext4 drive
mounted to /srv/cifs (of course with the "acl" option enabled).
I’ve been tr
Hi,
Running 3.6.12 here, I've come up against a very odd bug. It seems that
if you define a share where the "path =" parameter contains spaces (ie
"/home/samba/test test") it will be accessible from windows clients in
the same domain as the server, but will give an "access denied error"
from
Jonathan,
Thanks I tried your suggestion, but still no luck.
I created a new directory myplace2, I used mmeditacl to set the ACLs :
mmgetacl myplace2/
#owner:root
#group:root
user::rwxc
group::
other::
mask::rwxc
user:afrankel:rwxc
Same thing, permission denied.
I even changed my fs se
No, that didn't change anything. Still can't access directories (it
works fine with files.)
On 02/01/2013 01:27 AM, Pacher Dragos wrote:
> Does it work if you remove the
> map acl inherit = yes
> ?
>
No, that didn't change anything. Still can't access directories (it
works fine with files.)
Wha
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 15:41 -0500, Andras Frankel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am using the vfs_gpfs samba module to map ACLs through samba. It works
> fine on files, but directory ACLs are ignored. Ex:
>
> getfacl /sb/share/myplace/
>
> file: sb/share/myplace/
> owner: root
> group: root
> user::rwx
>
Hello,
I am using the vfs_gpfs samba module to map ACLs through samba. It works
fine on files, but directory ACLs are ignored. Ex:
getfacl /sb/share/myplace/
file: sb/share/myplace/
owner: root
group: root
user::rwx
user:afrankel:rwx
group::---
mask::rwx
other::---
When I try to access this fol
On 26/06/12 11:54, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 26/06/12 06:48, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 16:11 +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Note the DOMAIN and not "Unix User". Clicking apply si
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 16:11 +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
> On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
> >> Note the DOMAIN and not "Unix User". Clicking apply simply makes the
> >> new entry disappear.
> >>
> >> If username mapping is wo
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Note the DOMAIN and not "Unix User". Clicking apply simply makes the
new entry disappear.
If username mapping is working correctly, why does adding an ACL for
DOMAIN\nigel not set an ACL for U
On 22/06/12 12:22, steve wrote:
On 22/06/12 12:50, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 22/06/12 11:46, steve wrote:
On 22/06/12 11:41, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Am I corect in thinking that this is somethi
On 22/06/12 12:50, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 22/06/12 11:46, steve wrote:
On 22/06/12 11:41, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Am I corect in thinking that this is something that would be desireable
for o
On 22/06/12 11:46, steve wrote:
On 22/06/12 11:41, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Am I corect in thinking that this is something that would be desireable
for others and not just me and my rather oddb
On 22/06/12 11:41, Colin Fowler wrote:
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Am I corect in thinking that this is something that would be desireable
for others and not just me and my rather oddball configuration? For
people usi
On 21/06/12 17:50, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
Note the DOMAIN and not "Unix User". Clicking apply simply makes the
new entry disappear.
If username mapping is working correctly, why does adding an ACL for
DOMAIN\nigel not set an ACL for U
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Colin Fowler wrote:
>
> Note the DOMAIN and not "Unix User". Clicking apply simply makes the
> new entry disappear.
>
> If username mapping is working correctly, why does adding an ACL for
> DOMAIN\nigel not set an ACL for Unix User\nigel?
I'm not sure u
Thanks to some of the guys on #samba-technical (obnox in particular!), I
now have a working samba configuration.
The environment:
In our setup each user has an entry in both openldap (no samba schemes)
and AD. Each account has the same name and even has a Unix UID entry in
AD. Our users ssh i
On 04/18/2012 01:06 PM, Ben Metcalfe wrote:
Dear all,
The system is Ubuntu 12.04 (latest beta as of yesterday)
Bind 9.81 (12.04 standard)
Samba 4, also git-cloned yesterday.
I've imported a zpool created on another ubuntu system with the same
version of zfs-linux (RC-8) http://zfsonlinux.org/
Dear all,
The system is Ubuntu 12.04 (latest beta as of yesterday)
Bind 9.81 (12.04 standard)
Samba 4, also git-cloned yesterday.
I've imported a zpool created on another ubuntu system with the same
version of zfs-linux (RC-8) http://zfsonlinux.org/
The zpool is working perfectly well; responsiv
access a file produced from an NFS client with an acl giving
read/write permission to uid 1234. It also works this way when setting
acls via samba - acls are always assigned using the random uid not the
uid as defined in the password file which means that users on NFS
clients cannot read files
I have two users on my network, Mary and Bob, who work together in a
shared share. They both belong to the group Accounting. Bob is a savvy
Linux user who accesses the share via NFS4. Mary toils away using
Windows accessing the share via the Samba server. Mary will create a
directory on the share a
2011/2/1 sisu . :
>
> Hi all again,
>
> Finally I found the source of my problem, it was I set "force group = root"
> parameter on my shares, It was really useful for me since whether an user
> created a file it forced the group root as a primary root and then as I had
> the default acls (for s
Hi all again,
Finally I found the source of my problem, it was I set "force group = root"
parameter on my shares, It was really useful for me since whether an user
created a file it forced the group root as a primary root and then as I had the
default acls (for secondary group) for example:
Hi Everyone,
I have a really huge trouble with the Acls under windows 7. I use filesystem's
acls under samba and it works correctly under windows xp, but it does not in w7.
I am not sure if it is a kind of bug, the case is last week I upgraded my samba
3.0 to 3.5 and my acls under w7 worked
Hey, all. I've got some irksome issues, and would love it if someone
could show me where I'm going wrong.
First and foremost, I can access the folders, create new ones, etc. But
copying stuff from an existing Windows share (with ACLs), not so much.
Likewise when I try to assign permissions. I
G'day all,
One thing to note before I begin, if you think this e-mail should be targeted
at the linux-cifs folks (or anywhere else for that matter) and not the samba
general mailing list, please feel free to tell me.
I've been running our fileserver for a while without ACLs and off the ADS
dom
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Orlando Richards
wrote:
> On -10/01/37 20:59, big beer wrote:
>>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I've got a ctdb cluster working against a GPFS cluster. I've got ACLs
>> going and have set the default/active ACLs on my folders. The ACLs
>> seem to be working fine, they are co
On -10/01/37 20:59, big beer wrote:
Hello list,
I've got a ctdb cluster working against a GPFS cluster. I've got ACLs
going and have set the default/active ACLs on my folders. The ACLs
seem to be working fine, they are correctly limiting/allowing access
to the said folders/files.
My issue is th
Hello list,
I've got a ctdb cluster working against a GPFS cluster. I've got ACLs
going and have set the default/active ACLs on my folders. The ACLs
seem to be working fine, they are correctly limiting/allowing access
to the said folders/files.
My issue is that when using the windows client to vi
Here's (finally) the contents of his smb.conf:
[global]
workgroup = EXAMPLE01
password server = 192.168.50.1 192.168.50.2
realm = EXAMPLE.ORG
security = ads
idmap backend = rid:SIMR01=16777216-32554431
idmap uid = 16777216-33554431
idmap gid = 16777216-33554431
template shell = /bin/false
winbin
Hallo, Brandon,
Du meintest am 24.04.09:
> Silly me! My apologies ... the Samba server is CentOS 5.3 running
> Samba 3.0.33. I attached the smb.conf in my original post.
Don't try to send attachments - the maillist manager cuts them (and I
like this way to keep the list readable).
You can i
Hallo, John,
Du meintest am 25.04.09:
> I have no idea why his attachment is not working but I got it on my
> side so I am forwarding it to you and the list as well.
No attachment.
Viele Gruesse!
Helmut
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https:
I have no idea why his attachment is not working but I got it on my
side so I am forwarding it to you and the list as well.
John
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Aye aye aye. Alright, trying again. Thanks for your patience, everyone.
Still no attachment.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Aye aye aye. Alright, trying again. Thanks for your patience, everyone.
Brandon
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:24 PM, John Drescher wrote:
>> I attached the smb.conf in my original post.
>>
> That did not work. I see no attachment on the mailing list email.
>
> John
>
--
To unsubscribe from this
> I attached the smb.conf in my original post.
>
That did not work. I see no attachment on the mailing list email.
John
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Silly me! My apologies ... the Samba server is CentOS 5.3 running
Samba 3.0.33. I attached the smb.conf in my original post.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> It will be difficult to help you if you don't tell, at least, what version
> of Samba you are using...
>
> A loo
It will be difficult to help you if you don't tell, at least, what
version of Samba you are using...
A look at your smb.conf would be helpful, too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Hi All,
I am in the process of trying to build a Samba server to replace our
aging EMC Celerra file server appliance. The goal, ultimately, is to
build a file server on which we can migrate a file share from the
Celerra (ACL permissions and all) over to Samba, where the file share
can be exported
Hi Miguel,
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 12:22:58AM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> Here is the patch I've committed to the 3.3 code tree
>> for this problem. It will be in the next release. Please
>> try it out and let me know if it fixes your problem (it
>> does here).
>>
>
> Thank you so much!
>
Hi Miguel,
On Mi, Feb 04, 2009 at 12:22:58 +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> Here is the patch I've committed to the 3.3 code tree
>> for this problem. It will be in the next release. Please
>> try it out and let me know if it fixes your problem (it
>> does here).
>>
>
> Thank you so much!
>
>
Here is the patch I've committed to the 3.3 code tree
for this problem. It will be in the next release. Please
try it out and let me know if it fixes your problem (it
does here).
Thank you so much!
Will Sernet provide a 3.3.0-38 version as they did with 3.2.7?
--
To unsubscribe from this l
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 07:24:34PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> Is behavior of ACLs under Samba 3.3.0 (Sernet) completely different from
> that under version 3.2.7? The release notes only talks about some
> "fixes".
>
> I installed version 3.3.0 and got completely different result with the
>
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:53:08PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Volker's changes are correct, in that delete access in POSIX does not
> belong to a file itself, but to the containing directory. So really
> we should remove the DELETE_ACCESS bit from both the file and the
> directory ACL returned
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:49:35PM +, simo wrote:
>
> Jeremy, would it make sense to set the delete bit (or even full control)
> depending on whether the user has write control over the parent
> directory ?
Doing this right now...
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and
Effectively, we should remove the "map acl full control" parameter as it now
longer
has any use except to break things. I'll mark it deprecated with the patch.
Yes, I suppose you are right.
Thank you for your efforts. I really appreciate your work.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to t
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 14:43 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:32:55PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> >
> >> Volker's changes are correct, in that delete access in POSIX does not
> >> belong to a file itself, but to the containing directory. So really
> >> we should remove th
Can you give me an exact scenario to reproduce. I can certainly
delete files I have created in my test env.
I have a directory from which getfacl --t obtains the following:
USER Adminrwx rwx
GROUP Admins rwx rwx
group Admins rwx rwx
group Editores rwx rwx
gr
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:32:55PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> Volker's changes are correct, in that delete access in POSIX does not
>> belong to a file itself, but to the containing directory. So really
>> we should remove the DELETE_ACCESS bit from both the file and the
>> directory ACL ret
Volker's changes are correct, in that delete access in POSIX does not
belong to a file itself, but to the containing directory. So really
we should remove the DELETE_ACCESS bit from both the file and the
directory ACL returned.
Without having the deep knowledge you have about this, it seems to
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:08:14PM -0500, Ryan B. Lynch wrote:
>
> I tested this about four weeks ago, comparing operations from Windows
> clients against our Samba 3.2.7 server and another machine running a
> 3.3.0 pre-release checkout. The ACL rights assignments did appear to be
> differen
On Friday 30 January 2009 15:53:08 Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:25:02PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > I would describe the problem *slightly* differently from Miguel. I do
> > > not think that ACLs are the real problem, because the bug behaviour
> > > exists regardless o
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:03:57PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> How are they trying to delete the files ? Using Windows explorer or
>> cmd.exe or a custom app ?
>>
>>
>>
> Using Windows Explorer. This is a CentOS machine serving a network of
> Windows XP workstations.
Can you give me an
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:25:02PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > I would describe the problem *slightly* differently from Miguel. I do
> > not think that ACLs are the real problem, because the bug behaviour
> > exists regardless of whether you're using filesystem AC
How are they trying to delete the files ? Using Windows explorer or
cmd.exe or a custom app ?
Using Windows Explorer. This is a CentOS machine serving a network of
Windows XP workstations.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:59:58PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> What your users can do with the file over Samba hasn't actually changed,
>> is they have write access to the directory they can still delete
>> the file, but the ACLs "look funny".
>>
>>
>
> No, they can't. I was alerted to thi
What your users can do with the file over Samba hasn't actually changed,
is they have write access to the directory they can still delete
the file, but the ACLs "look funny".
No, they can't. I was alerted to this problem precisely because users
who have full access to the directory sudden
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 01:25:02PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > I would describe the problem *slightly* differently from Miguel. I do
> > not think that ACLs are the real problem, because the bug behaviour
> > exists regardless of whether you're using filesystem ACLs or not.
> >
> > The pr
I would describe the problem *slightly* differently from Miguel. I do
not think that ACLs are the real problem, because the bug behaviour
exists regardless of whether you're using filesystem ACLs or not.
You may be right. I didn't have the time to thoroughly test it because I
had to imm
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Ryan B. Lynch wrote:
> Miguel Medalha wrote:
>>
>>> Much of the ACL code has been rewritten to allow underlying
>>> filesystems to implement "native" NT ACLs directly (...)
>>
>> Good!
>>
>>> but the functionality should be the same as 3.2.x when not
>>> us
Miguel Medalha wrote:
Much of the ACL code has been rewritten to allow underlying
filesystems to implement "native" NT ACLs directly (...)
Good!
but the functionality should be the same as 3.2.x when not
using the "experimental" ACL modules.
I am not using the ACL modules and the func
Much of the ACL code has been rewritten to allow underlying
filesystems to implement "native" NT ACLs directly (...)
Good!
but the functionality should be the same as 3.2.x when not
using the "experimental" ACL modules.
I am not using the ACL modules and the functionality is definitely
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:58:16AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:50:50PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > Not yet, it's on my list of things to document and
> > > discuss in a talk at SambaXP this yea
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 08:50:50PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Not yet, it's on my list of things to document and
> > discuss in a talk at SambaXP this year.
>
> As you mention it -- did I miss your talk submitted?
Just hit t
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Not yet, it's on my list of things to document and
> discuss in a talk at SambaXP this year.
As you mention it -- did I miss your talk submitted?
Volker
pgpsFkI5d4z9U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
To unsubscribe from this li
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 07:24:34PM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> Is behavior of ACLs under Samba 3.3.0 (Sernet) completely different from
> that under version 3.2.7? The release notes only talks about some
> "fixes".
>
> I installed version 3.3.0 and got completely different result with the
>
Is behavior of ACLs under Samba 3.3.0 (Sernet) completely different from
that under version 3.2.7? The release notes only talks about some "fixes".
I installed version 3.3.0 and got completely different result with the
same filesystem and the exact same samba configuration. The ACLs behaved
st
Hi Guys,
Unusual issue with setting ACL's permission ownership recursively on a
directory, please look at samba logs if anyone has any idea, please
advise...
Kind Regards
1. [2008/02/22 10:30:37, 3] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(1230)
2. max (192.168.1.254) closed connection to service IPC$
On Friday 24 August 2007 08:49:34 Chuck Kollars wrote:
> > From: Chuck Kollars yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Samba & ACLs?
> > Date: 2006-08-19 02:46:45 GMT
> >
> > How exactly do Samba 3.x and ACLs interrelate? ...
> > I started out naively assuming that th
> From: Chuck Kollars yahoo.com>
> Subject: Samba & ACLs?
> Date: 2006-08-19 02:46:45 GMT
> How exactly do Samba 3.x and ACLs interrelate? ...
> I started out naively assuming that the *nix
> uidNumber/gidNumber Samba mapped the end user to
> would behave exactly
On Thursday 09 August 2007 15:58, Angela Gavazzi wrote:
> My working nsswitch.conf look like this:
>
> passwd: files winbind ldap
> group: files winbind ldap
> shadow: files winbind ldap
>
> By, Angela
Can nss_winbind be used against a Samba domain? AFAICS it is only used t
On Thursday 09 August 2007 13:28:49 Thierry Lacoste wrote:
>
> Thanks Henrik.
> Can someone explain why or point me to some doc?
> What I read everywhere is that winbind is used to identify users of a
> windows domain at the NSS level (mapping them localy with
> winbindd_idmap.tdb or globaly with
On Thursday 09 August 2007 08:38, Henrik Zagerholm wrote:
> 8 aug 2007 kl. 16:18 skrev Thierry Lacoste:
> > I'm trying to allow XP clients to add ACLs in the homes share.
> > It appears that I'm unable to do it unless I use winbind
> > although I'm in a pure Samba/OpenLDAP environment.
> >
> > I ha
8 aug 2007 kl. 16:18 skrev Thierry Lacoste:
I'm trying to allow XP clients to add ACLs in the homes share.
It appears that I'm unable to do it unless I use winbind
although I'm in a pure Samba/OpenLDAP environment.
I have a PDC and BDC with Samba/OpenLDAP
and a member Samba server with homes a
I'm trying to allow XP clients to add ACLs in the homes share.
It appears that I'm unable to do it unless I use winbind
although I'm in a pure Samba/OpenLDAP environment.
I have a PDC and BDC with Samba/OpenLDAP
and a member Samba server with homes and profiles (below
is its smb.conf) on which I h
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 09:42:32AM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
> Sun v440s running Solaris and ZFS as dedicated storage machines. NFSv4 does
> support POSIX ACLs so we would export the file systems to the rest of the
> network. We can then run (and reduce the total number of instances of)
> samba
From what I've read so far Samba supports POSIX ACLs, correct? If so, will
they work over NFSv4 exports?
The reason I'm asking is as follows:
We're considering redoing our storage systems which currently also house
Samba servers. These are currently running on Linux boxes with NFS exports
to t
rly. I am using .23c
with little to no issues. I believe that you should upgrade to a newer RHEL
rpm of Samba if at all possible. Hope that works out for you.
Theodore Charles III
Network Administrator
Los Angeles Senior High
From: Pierig Le Saux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: samba@lists.samb
Hello,
I am currently migrating data from NT4 to Samba, and ownership is not
preserved.
Could someone please confirm the option "inherit owner" does not work on
RHEL4 (samba-3.0.10-1.4E.11)?
How can I get this working?
Regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and rea
I managed to implement a single sign on system with MIT-Kerberos and windows
clients using pgina with the PAM plugin (www.pgina.org). So my clients login
via PAM having effectively a local user on the windows machine. Now I would
like to add a public share (security=share) with the correct ACLs
30 Jan 2007 10:11:13 -0600
Von: "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Jens Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: Re: [Samba] ACLs fail in 3.0.23d
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jens Nissen wrote:
>
> > OK - I managed to trac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Nissen wrote:
> OK - I managed to track down the bug inside Samba,
> but I have no easy way to work around it.
> The dynamic mapping of vfs acls inside Samba does
> not seem to work. See the following sequence in posix_acls.c
> in function get
had to find all wrapped
library code and replace it by something hard-wired.
Kind regards,
Jens Nissen
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:44:18 +0100 (MET)
Von: Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Jens Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: Re: [Samba] AC
>One question: how does Samba find out, that ACLs are activated?
I suppose the only sane way is to try calling functions from libacl. If
they fail unreasonably, then the fs does not support ACLs.
>>> Whenever I try to read or modify ACLs from my Windows 2000 PDC, my Samba
>>> Domain Member Serve
Thanks for your fast reply!
I forgot to mention: I am using ext3.
# mount | grep export
/dev/hda4 on /export type ext3 (acl,user_xattr)
One question: how does Samba find out, that ACLs are activated?
Does it use the /proc filesystem? This would cause trouble, see the
following:
# cat /proc/mount
On Jan 29 2007 12:45, Jens Nissen wrote:
>
>Whenever I try to read or modify ACLs from my Windows 2000 PDC, my Samba
>Domain Member Server (Security = ADS) does not allow setting ACLs, nor
>does it display the existing ACLs.
Does it at least enforce them?
>(A) Strange thing - a bug in smbd??: ev
Whenever I try to read or modify ACLs from my Windows 2000 PDC, my Samba
Domain Member Server (Security = ADS) does not allow setting ACLs, nor
does it display the existing ACLs.
- I have setup ACLs in my Kernel
- I have translated and installed libacl and libattr
- I can see and modify ACLs with
Hi,
This is actually quite a complex topic. Basically ...
* Linux (and other *nix) generally support Posix ACL's . These are
similar to but not exactly the same as Window ACL's. I use the
ext3 filesystem on Linux and this supports ACL's.
* Get familiar with posix ACL's . Play ar
How exactly do Samba 3.x and ACLs interrelate? With
the mount parameter I've turned on ACLs on the whole
filesystem that Samba has various pointers into
(including all the home directories and the netlogon).
I started out naively assuming that the *nix
uidNumber/gidNumber Samba mapped the end use
I am having a heck of a time getting ACLs to work in Samba. I can create
files in the shares fine. But when I go to change permissions, I get an
access denied.
Nt acl support = yes
Security mask = 0777
Directory security mask = 0777
Admin users = myaccount
I don't know what else to open up.
__
48
>Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: samba@lists.samba.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] ACLs and EXT3
>
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>thank you for your answer
>
>This article shows me a lot of details which help me to
>understand more about ACLs
>
>But my problem was not solve with it. Th
Hi Ian,
thank you for your answer
This article shows me a lot of details which help me to understand more about
ACLs
But my problem was not solve with it. There is discribe how I can copy files
without inherit ACLs.
I want to know how I can move ACLs with inheritance from the parent directory
Hi Daniel,
You need to read up on Default ACLs. This article should cover what you
need to know.
http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/ACL/linux-acl.html
regards,
Ian
Daniel Haas wrote:
Hi List,
I am working with ACLs and the EXT3 Filesystem and I have the same problem how
already discussed in sev
Hi List,
I am working with ACLs and the EXT3 Filesystem and I have the same problem how
already discussed in several NGs.
If I move a file from one directory into another, the file do not change the
persmissons. So the users who should be authorize to access the file, do not
have these permis
I forgive me Paul, not wise person. Well, the samba was compiled with support
ACL, look out command:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] source]# strings $(which smbd) | grep HAVE_POSIX_ACLS
HAVE_POSIX_ACLS
I didn't find no fail when I compiled the samba. I go to send for you my file
configure.log
Thanks,
Lu
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
