Hi,
I have a question about file permissions and how they are affected by a
client's umask.
To illustrate my question, I issued the following commands first on a
local ext3 file system and
then on a cifs file system:
$ umask 0002
$ touch f1
$ echo xx > f2
$ umask 0022
$ touch f3
$ echo xx > f4
$ ls -l
On Ext3, the output is:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 abdv29 users 0 Oct 9 00:31 f1
-rw-rw-r-- 1 abdv29 users 3 Oct 9 00:31 f2
-rw-r--r-- 1 abdv29 users 0 Oct 9 00:31 f3
-rw-r--r-- 1 abdv29 users 3 Oct 9 00:31 f4
On a CIFS mount the output is:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 abdv29 users 0 Oct 9 00:35 f1
-rw-rw-r-- 1 abdv29 users 3 Oct 9 00:35 f2
-rw-r--r-- 1 abdv29 users 0 Oct 9 00:35 f3
-rw-rw-r-- 1 abdv29 users 3 Oct 9 00:35 f4
The relevant section from smb.conf on the samba server is:
[common]
comment = Common Area
path = /common
read only = no
valid users = @users
create mask = 0660
force create mode = 0660
force directory mode = 775
write list = @users
force group = users
directory mask = 0775
The share is mounted on a Linux system with the following command:
mount.cifs //localhost/common /mnt/smb -o
rw,uid=600,gid=504,user=abdv29,password=*******
>From what I have understood of the samba documentation, the various file
creation masks specified
by Samba do not override a client umask.
If that is so, I would expect that the permissions for file "f4" on
the
cifs mount should be 644
(rw-r--r--) rather than 664 which it is.
Can someone please explain why on the CIFS mount, with a umask of 0022,
files created with "touch"
and "echo" end up with different group permissions? (Noting of course
that on a non CIFS file system,
these commands produce files with identical permissions).
The above seems inconsistent to me. My aim is to have a Samba share on
which all files created
will be group writable - I expect to have Windows users, Mac users and
Linux users. I would rather not
have to ask all the Mac and Linux users to change their umasks to
0002 ... or is this the only
solution?
I am using Samba version 3.2.3-0.20 on Fedora 9.
Thanks in advance.
Gerry.
------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content
by MailScanner and is believed to be clean.