samba - Jan 2005 - security=share, write / read-only mix doesn't work on Samba3

Hi, 

I'm having trouble migrating from Samba2 to Samba3.  I'm trying to make 
a share that allows some users read-only access, and others 
read-write.   In version 2.2 this worked, but not in version 3.

I'm pretty sure it's my configuration, but I ran into this link on the 
samba bugzilla site, and now I don't know.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1844


Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Here's my smb.conf file:

------------------------------------------------------


[global]
        read raw = yes
        guest account = nobody
        socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=16384 
SO_RCVBUF=16384
        wins server = 192.168.1.1
        null passwords = yes
        map to guest = bad user
        encrypt passwords = yes
        level2 oplocks = yes
        lock directory = /var/lock/subsys
        netbios name = myserver
        write cache size = 16384
        server string = myserver
        min passwd length = 0
        unix password sync = yes
        workgroup = mygroup
        os level = 20
        force user = all
        comment = My Server
        security = user
        getwd cache = yes
        dont descend = /proc,/dev,/etc,/usr
        max log size = 2000
        log level = 1

[share]
        comment = My Share
        read list = @CommonUsers
        user = @CommonUsers,@Administrators
        write list = @Administrators
        path = /home/users
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks!

Carlos Knowlton

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

Carlos Knowlton wrote:

| I'm having trouble migrating from Samba2 to Samba3.  I'm
| trying to make  a share that allows some users
| read-only access, and others read-write.   In version 2.2
| this worked, but not in version 3.
|
| I'm pretty sure it's my configuration, but I ran into
| this link on the  samba bugzilla site, and now I don't know.
|
| https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1844

I've always thought this an odd configuration...expecting
user level access control with a security level that has
no concept of users.  My recommendation is to migrate to
security = user.  I'm not really inclined to re-instantiate
the previous behavior.  It's too confusing IMO (both to
explain and to maintain).








cheers, jerry
====================================================================Alleviating
the pain of Windows(tm)      ------- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key                ----- http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
"I never saved anything for the swim back."     Ethan Hawk in Gattaca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB+53eIR7qMdg1EfYRAv41AKCQSlw71r6TQaCqnPPmqXEdy2c4SwCg3zJq
2nb7Ifz2ZzI9BvGVwsqV6vM=SN0x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----