On 12/18/25 8:32 PM, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote:> On 12/18/25 10:25 AM, Nikkos Svoboda via samba wrote: >> I can simply think that this *might* not be intended behavior for unix >> extension clients. Is this intended behavior for this setting combo? > > Yes. Setting "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links = yes" > always hides all symlinks from clients. It's dangerously insecure > and the settings remain for legacy smb.conf files and cases where > the admin knows what they are doing. As I recall setting this > does always generate a warning in the log.I wonder though if "follow symlinks = no" being forced by SMB3 POSIX should trump "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links = yes" in theory? So this might be a bug. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 840 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20251218/4cbb44c3/OpenPGP_signature.sig>
On 12/18/25 11:35 AM, Ralph Boehme via samba wrote:> On 12/18/25 8:32 PM, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: >> On 12/18/25 10:25 AM, Nikkos Svoboda via samba wrote: >>> I can simply think that this *might* not be intended behavior for >>> unix extension clients. Is this intended behavior for this setting >>> combo? >> >> Yes. Setting "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links = yes" >> always hides all symlinks from clients. It's dangerously insecure >> and the settings remain for legacy smb.conf files and cases where >> the admin knows what they are doing. As I recall setting this >> does always generate a warning in the log. > > I wonder though if "follow symlinks = no" being forced by SMB3 POSIX > should trump "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links = yes" in > theory? So this might be a bug. >I think setting "wide links = yes" and "allow insecure wide links = yes" deliberately turns off SMB3 POSIX, but I haven't had time to check.