Hi, I've been having a problem in Samba version 3, using "security = share". When you have a share that you want to be read-only to one group, and read-write to another. It ends up being read-write for both groups. This behavior seems inconsistent with Samba 2.2.x behavior. Have the configuration options changed, or is this a bug? This issue is listed on Samba's bugzilla site: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1844 and so far, the only reaction I've seen by talking to Samba people about it, is that "security = share" is major pain, and nobody wants to deal with it's problems. Is share level security being phased out of Samba, or am I just missing the right configuration options? Thanks! Carlos PS: here's my config file. --------------------------smb.conf---------------------------------------------- [global] read raw = yes guest account = nobody socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=16384 null passwords = yes map to guest = bad user encrypt passwords = yes level2 oplocks = yes lock directory = /var/lock/subsys netbios name = fsix-Server write cache size = 16384 server string = fsix Server default = user min passwd length = 0 unix password sync = yes workgroup = fsix os level = 20 comment = FSIX Server security = share getwd cache = yes dont descend = /proc,/dev,/etc,/usr max log size = 2000 log level = 2 [share] writeable = yes read list = user user = user,cknowlton write list = cknowlton path = /home/users/share
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
2005-Feb-09 12:31 UTC
[Samba] is "security = share" maintained in 3.0.x?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlos Knowlton wrote: | Hi, | | | I've been having a problem in Samba version 3, using "security | share". When you have a share that you want to be read-only to one | group, and read-write to another. It ends up being read-write for both | groups. This behavior seems inconsistent with Samba 2.2.x behavior. | Have the configuration options changed, or is this a bug? This issue is | listed on Samba's bugzilla site: | https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1844 | and so far, the only reaction I've seen by talking to Samba people about | it, is that "security = share" is major pain, and nobody wants to deal | with it's problems. Is share level security being phased out of Samba, | or am I just missing the right configuration options? No. I wish we could kill it and security = server for that matter. But I think we're going to have to fix this after all. I really *hate* security = share. Hopefully we'll be able to get to this for 3.0.12. 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 iD8DBQFCCgKIIR7qMdg1EfYRAshkAKDWUFL8k3w5OoMU7TRd5bV/KwDtpQCgjG0l syJWOLcVYmdZ+L9Dm+Tt8CM=52Yl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----