Hi, I wanted to use a symlink in a share, but it didn't work. I tried it on Samba 4.10. I thought that follow symlinks = yes is enough (and it is default). I googled about it, and found a solution: unix extensions = no in the global section, and wide links = Yes follow symlinks = yes in the shares' section. According to the man, unix extensions = yes is the default, but the samba-tool testparm -s smb.conf.master output didn't include the unix extensions = no option. After I inserted it into the smb.conf, and reloaded Samba, I could step into the symlinked directory. smb.conf: [global] bind interfaces only = Yes dos charset = CP852 interfaces = lo eth0 log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log log level = 0 acls:3 logon path = "" name resolve order = lmhosts host bcast realm = A.B.HU security = ADS template homedir = /home/%D/users/%U template shell = /bin/bash unix charset = UTF8 username map = /etc/samba/user.map workgroup = A idmap config a : range = 10000-999999 idmap config a : backend = rid idmap config * : range = 3000-7999 idmap config * : backend = tdb csc policy = disable map acl inherit = Yes store dos attributes = Yes vfs objects = acl_xattr unix extensions = no [share] browseable = No path = /path/to/share read only = No wide links = Yes So, if unix extensions = yes is the default, then samba-tool makes mistake, if the default is no, then the manual is wrong. What is the difference between wide links, and follow symlinks?
Am 14.08.19 um 14:15 schrieb Pisch Tam?s via samba:> I wanted to use a symlink in a share, but it didn't work. I tried it > on Samba 4.10. I thought that > follow symlinks = yes > is enough (and it is default). I googled about it, and found a solution: > unix extensions = no > in the global section, and > wide links = Yes > follow symlinks = yes > in the shares' section. According to the man, > unix extensions = yes > is the default, but the > samba-tool testparm -s smb.conf.master > output didn't include the > unix extensions = no > option. After I inserted it into the smb.conf, and reloaded Samba, I > could step into the symlinked directory.well, if you prefer terrible insecure configurations you can do that while a snesible setup would just contain an additional share to that directory
On 14/08/2019 13:15, Pisch Tam?s via samba wrote:> Hi, > > I wanted to use a symlink in a share, but it didn't work. I tried it > on Samba 4.10. I thought that > follow symlinks = yes > is enough (and it is default). I googled about it, and found a solution: > unix extensions = no > in the global section, and > wide links = Yes > follow symlinks = yes > in the shares' section. According to the man, > unix extensions = yes > is the default, but the > samba-tool testparm -s smb.conf.master > output didn't include the > unix extensions = no > option. After I inserted it into the smb.conf, and reloaded Samba, I > could step into the symlinked directory. > > smb.conf: > [global] > bind interfaces only = Yes > dos charset = CP852 > interfaces = lo eth0 > log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log > log level = 0 acls:3 > logon path = "" > name resolve order = lmhosts host bcast > realm = A.B.HU > security = ADS > template homedir = /home/%D/users/%U > template shell = /bin/bash > unix charset = UTF8 > username map = /etc/samba/user.map > workgroup = A > idmap config a : range = 10000-999999 > idmap config a : backend = rid > idmap config * : range = 3000-7999 > idmap config * : backend = tdb > csc policy = disable > map acl inherit = Yes > store dos attributes = Yes > vfs objects = acl_xattr > unix extensions = no > > [share] > browseable = No > path = /path/to/share > read only = No > wide links = Yes > > So, if > unix extensions = yes > is the default, then samba-tool makes mistake, if the default is no, > then the manual is wrong. > What is the difference between wide links, and follow symlinks? >Can I suggest you read 'man smb.conf' again, paying attention to: follow symlinks unix extensions wide links allow insecure wide links Samba is trying to stop you doing something that is potentially dangerous, do you really want your clients to be able to create a symlink? to '/' ? Rowland