samba - Dec 2025 - Symlink bugs with SMB3 unix extensions

On 12/18/25 10:25 AM, Nikkos Svoboda via samba wrote:
> I can simply think that this *might* not be intended behavior for unix 
> extension clients. Is this intended behavior for this setting combo?
Yes. Setting "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links =
yes"
always hides all symlinks from clients. It's dangerously insecure
and the settings remain for legacy smb.conf files and cases where
the admin knows what they are doing. As I recall setting this
does always generate a warning in the log.

On 12/18/25 8:32 PM, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote:
> On 12/18/25 10:25 AM, Nikkos Svoboda via samba wrote:
>> I can simply think that this *might* not be intended behavior for unix 
>> extension clients. Is this intended behavior for this setting combo?
> 
> Yes. Setting "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide
links = yes"
> always hides all symlinks from clients. It's dangerously insecure
> and the settings remain for legacy smb.conf files and cases where
> the admin knows what they are doing. As I recall setting this
> does always generate a warning in the log.
I wonder though if "follow symlinks = no" being forced by SMB3 POSIX 
should trump "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links =
yes" in
theory? So this might be a bug.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20251218/4cbb44c3/OpenPGP_signature.sig>