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 around with getfacl and
setfacl on your unix box. Here is a good article on ACL's on Linux
http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/ACL/linux-acl.html .
* Samba attempts to map Posix ACL's to Windows ACL's . This would
explain the difference in permissions you are seeing when creating
a file locally or remotely via windows. You'll find the specific
documentation on the on the samba website. There are a number of
paremeters in the smb.conf which control this specific behaviour .
Hope that helps.
--
Ian Clancy
IT Co-ordinator
Connaught Electronics Ltd.
Dunmore Rd,
Tuam,
Co. Galway,
Ireland.
P : ++353 93 23151
F : ++353 93 23110
E : mailto:clancyian@cel.ie
W : http://www.cel-europe.com
Chuck Kollars wrote:> 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 user to would
> behave exactly the same whether they were a Samba user
> or were logged on locally. But my experience is a file
> created through Samba and a file created locally by
> `touch` do _not_ necessarily have the exact same
> permissions/ACLs. Most likely there's some pattern to
> what permissions/ACLs are actually created by Samba;
> but I haven't succeeded in figuring it out.
>
> What's the recipe for figuring out exactly what
> permissions/ACLs a file created through Samba will
> actually be given?
>
> thanks!
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>