search for: is_share_read_only_for_us

...ervice) in service.c is 0 [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(383) [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(309) ret is 1 check_access() in service.c is 1 [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(309) ret is 1 [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(67) lp_readonly(conn->service) in service.c is 0 [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(68) [2006/12/12 18:31:19, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(309) ret is 1 check_access() in service.c is 1 [2006/12/12 18:31:20, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(309) ret is 1 [2...

...s valid users = @"UIUC+domain users" vfs objects = zfsacl nfs4: mode = special The logs will spit out: [2007/12/12 10:09:17, 10] smbd/share_access.c:(232) user_ok_token: share arrakis is ok for unix user UIUC+vanhoudn [2007/12/12 10:09:17, 10] smbd/share_access.c:(274) is_share_read_only_for_user: share arrakis is read-write for unix user UIUC+vanhoudn Which is good. And, we can see that samba is correctly finding all of the groups that this user is a member of... [2007/12/12 10:09:17, 5] auth/auth_util.c:(474) UNIX token of user 10000 Primary group is 10031 and contains 58 supplem...

...bd/connection.c:claim_connection(170) claiming db 0 [2005/06/25 01:32:33, 10] lib/username.c:user_in_list(529) user_in_list: checking user jk in list [2005/06/25 01:32:33, 10] lib/username.c:user_in_list(533) user_in_list: checking user |jk| against |root| [2005/06/25 01:32:33, 10] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(99) is_share_read_only_for_user: share db is read-write for unix user jk [2005/06/25 01:32:33, 4] rpc_server/srv_srvsvc_nt.c:get_share_security(217) get_share_security: using default secdesc for db [2005/06/25 01:32:33, 10] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_map_generic(176) se_map_generic(): mapped ma...

...0, pid=6463, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/share_access.c:237(user_ok_token) user_ok_token: share (null) is ok for unix user DOMAIN\ish-prd-svc [2016/08/31 08:00:40.641123, 10, pid=6463, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/smbd/share_access.c:284(is_share_read_only_for_token) is_share_read_only_for_user: share (null) is read-write for unix user DOMAIN\ish-prd-svc [2016/08/31 08:00:40.641139, 0, pid=6463, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../source3/param/loadparm.c:1460(canonicalize_servicename) canonicalize_servicename: NULL source name! [2016/08/31 08:00:40.641155, 3, pid=6463, effective(0, 0),...

.../05 16:40:40.672815, 10, pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../../source3/smbd/share_access.c:220(user_ok_token) user_ok_token: share IPC$ is ok for unix user bbb [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672840, 10, pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../../source3/smbd/share_access.c:271(is_share_read_only is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user bbb [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672868, 10, pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] ../../libcli/security/access_check.c:366(se_file_access_ se_file_access_check: MAX desired = 0x2000000 mapped to 0x1f01ff [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672915, 4, pid=2781, effective(0, 0)...

...full access -- but that defeats the purpose, because then the share can be overwritten by normal users. And what is very strange is that in looking at the logs, everything appears to be normal... I even get: [2007/06/12 17:11:08, 10] smbd/share_access.c:is_share_read_only_for_token(274) is_share_read_only_for_user: share softwaretest is read-write for unix user DOMAIN#user right up until I try to write the file, at which point: [2007/06/12 17:11:13, 10] smbd/open.c:fd_open(67) fd_open: name New Bitmap Image.bmp, flags = 05002 mode = 0777, fd = -1. Permission denied [2007/06/12 17:11:13, 3] smb...

...pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] > ../../source3/smbd/share_access.c:220(user_ok_token) > user_ok_token: share IPC$ is ok for unix user bbb > [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672840, 10, pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] > ../../source3/smbd/share_access.c:271(is_share_read_only > is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user bbb > [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672868, 10, pid=2781, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] > ../../libcli/security/access_check.c:366(se_file_access_ > se_file_access_check: MAX desired = 0x2000000 mapped to 0x1f01ff > [2020/06/05 16:40:40.672915, 4, pid=2...

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:41:53AM -0400, Jeff Hodge via samba wrote: > > During an ubuntu 14.04 update samba was updated from 4.1.6 to 4.3.9. We > > had no problems with any windows system accessing the server prior to the > > upgrade to 4.3.9. It seems to affect access to the entire samba

Hi, I want to switch from 'security = server' to 'security = ADS'. Kerberos is working and I can login to the server. With Samba 3.0.22 I was able to restrict access to shares with the 'valid users' directive. ve is local unix group. valid users = +ve And force the group ownership with the 'force group' directive. force group = +ve [foo] comment = foo

...e_access_check(309) > se_access_check: access (2) granted. > [2005/04/04 09:15:45, 3] smbd/vfs.c:vfs_init_default(206) > Initialising default vfs hooks > [2005/04/04 09:15:45, 5] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(170) > claiming IPC$ 0 > [2005/04/04 09:15:45, 10] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(99) > is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user root > [2005/04/04 09:15:45, 4] rpc_server/srv_srvsvc_nt.c:get_share_security(217) > get_share_security: using default secdesc for IPC$ > [2005/04/04 09:15:45, 10] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_map_generic(176) >...

...199, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/vfs.c:vfs_init_default(203) Initialising default vfs hooks [2005/11/25 13:13:28, 5, pid=18199, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(170) claiming IPC$ 0 [2005/11/25 13:13:28, 10, pid=18199, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(99) is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user nobody [2005/11/25 13:13:28, 4, pid=18199, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] rpc_server/srv_srvsvc_nt.c:get_share_security(217) get_share_security: using default secdesc for IPC$ [2005/11/25 13:13:28, 10, pid=18199, effective(0...

...lt vfs hooks [2007/01/30 15:54:54, 5] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(170) claiming IPC$ 0 [2007/01/30 15:54:54, 10] smbd/share_access.c:user_ok_token(229) user_ok_token: share IPC$ is ok for unix user sloeckle [2007/01/30 15:54:54, 10] smbd/share_access.c:is_share_read_only_for_token(271) is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user sloeckle [2007/01/30 15:54:54, 4] lib/sharesec.c:get_share_security(130) get_share_security: using default secdesc for IPC$ [2007/01/30 15:54:54, 10] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_map_generic(176) se_map_generic(): mapped mask 0x10000000 to 0x001f01ff [2007/01/...

Hello list! On all my samba installations (3.0.20b) I can delete all unused printer drivers with rpcclient regardless which user name or password i use. Is this a general feature or might it depend on my settings? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Zielinski mz@seh.de Software Development SEH Computertechnik GmbH www.seh.de

...[Default VFS]/ [2008/04/22 16:12:30, 5] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(182) claiming IPC$ 0 [2008/04/22 16:12:30, 10] smbd/share_access.c:user_ok_token(232) user_ok_token: share IPC$ is ok for unix user scott [2008/04/22 16:12:30, 10] smbd/share_access.c:is_share_read_only_for_token(274) is_share_read_only_for_user: share IPC$ is read-only for unix user scott [2008/04/22 16:12:30, 4] lib/sharesec.c:get_share_security(132) get_share_security: using default secdesc for IPC$ [2008/04/22 16:12:30, 10] lib/util_seaccess.c:se_map_generic(176) se_map_generic(): mapped mask 0x10000000 to 0x001f01ff [2008/04/22...

.../22 09:46:07, 3, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/vfs.c:vfs_init_default(215) Initialising default vfs hooks [2005/12/22 09:46:07, 5, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/connection.c:claim_connection(170) claiming Programme 0 [2005/12/22 09:46:07, 10, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] smbd/uid.c:is_share_read_only_for_user(122) is_share_read_only_for_user: share Programme is read-write for unix user crettenbacher [2005/12/22 09:46:07, 4, effective(0, 0), real(0, 0)] rpc_server/srv_srvsvc_nt.c:get_share_security(217) get_share_security: using default secdesc for Programme [2005/12/22 09:46:07, 10, effective(...

Hello, I have a question because POSIX ACL with SMB2 max protocol does not work properly.Did you test VFS xattr acls with SMB2 max protocol? Is it working corectly? Best regards/Adrian Berlin --