samba - May 2016 - Why did samba4 remove "force security mode" and "force directory security"?

Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and "force
directory
security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove them.
Maybe
just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
problem, they should use them carefully.

On 16/05/16 15:46, Sense Zeng wrote:
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and
"force
> directory security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to 
> remove them. Maybe just a warning to the users remain that these 
> parameters cost the acl problem, they should use them carefully.
I don't think they will be coming back, they were removed 4 main 
branches and approximately 3 and half years ago :-)

Rowland

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Sense Zeng wrote:
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and
"force directory
> security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove
them. Maybe
> just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
> problem, they should use them carefully.
You can still use "force create mode" and "force directory
mode" to set
the initial permissions, even though you can't prevent users from removing 
those permissions later.  I still use this on a setup that is solely using 
unix permissions to force SGID permissions on directories (and g+rw on 
files), I presume you are doing something similar.

I guess the Samba team wants you to use Windows ACLs for advanced 
permissions management.

I setup a cron task to check and fix the permission. Thanks for all.

2016-05-16 23:53 GMT+08:00 Sketch <smblist at rednsx.org>:
> On Mon, 16 May 2016, Sense Zeng wrote:
>
> Thanks for reply. But I think "force security mode" and
"force directory
>> security" are very very helpful. It's not necessary to remove
them. Maybe
>> just a warning to the users remain that these parameters cost the acl
>> problem, they should use them carefully.
>>
>
> You can still use "force create mode" and "force directory
mode" to set
> the initial permissions, even though you can't prevent users from
removing
> those permissions later.  I still use this on a setup that is solely using
> unix permissions to force SGID permissions on directories (and g+rw on
> files), I presume you are doing something similar.
>
> I guess the Samba team wants you to use Windows ACLs for advanced
> permissions management.
>