search for: richacl

Thanks for the first reply, Jeremy. What about the (future) implementation of RichACL? Will there be any native Linux Client support along with the SMB2/SMB3 protocol? I know, there is a native implemenation for RichACLs in ext4 FS. Unfortunately, smbcals is not a native Linux ACL Tool and has a very unhandy syntax. I just tested some days ago. ;-) I am looking for a solution that...

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:51:21PM +0000, Kraus, Sebastian via samba wrote: > Thanks for the first reply, Jeremy. > What about the (future) implementation of RichACL? Windows ACLs map quite well into RichACLs. Unfortunately Christolph Hellwig has peristently blocked any merge of the RichACLs code into the Linux kernel. If you use ZFS then you can use ZFSACLs which are quivalent. > Will there be any native Linux Client support along with the SMB2/SMB3 pro...

...e difficult to match them to ntfs acls. Good luck with that. Keep in mind that unless you're using zfs or gpfs Linux does not provide anything close to ntfs ACLs. With zfs or gpfs you get nfsv4 acls, which are closer to ntfs than posix acls, but as Christoph Hellwig has just pretty much killed richacls, this will take a decade or more to come to the more popular Linux file systems. Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de

Hello, I am using rsync 3.1.0 on Solaris 11 and Ubuntu 14.04. I would like to be able to preserve ZFS (aka NFSv4) ACLs that are set on a ZFS filesystem on a Solaris system when rsyncing to a Linux (ext4) backup server. I know that ext4 does not support RichACLs, but I believe rsync has the ability to store this extra data and then restore it if synced back to a filesystem that knows how to use it? Testing thus far I have used these options, but ACLs do not appear to be preserved when I sync them back to the ZFS filesystem on Solaris: rsync -av --xattrs -...

Dear all, what is about the support for POSIX ACL in Samba protocol implementation of SMB2 and SMB3? >From what I extracted from SNIA and SambaXP developer conference talks and as well as the official Samba Wiki, support for POSIX ACL in SMB2 and SMB3 has been completely abandonned. Am I right? If so, is there any other possibility to allow Linux Clients to natively access access control lists

Hi. We set up a samba domain with two DC ver. 4.7.3 and a file server ver. 4.7.1. Currently we have a problem setting ACLs from a Microsoft client. When we set an ACL the client shows the new ACL correctly, but on the fileserver the /getfacl/ command shows no changes. The filesystem is na ext4 with the options /rw,acl,user_xattr,usrquota,grpquota./ This is the share configuration:/ /

...d unnecessary sid->xid translations - Better > compatibility with Windows, since by default Windows does not enforce > existence of "traverse folder" right on parent folders, and modifying > POSIX ACLs on parent folders could cause the kernel to deny access > (dunno how RichACLs would handle this one :( )." > > A discussion about the subject can be found on the archives after this > post. > > Version 4.4.3 of Samba was the first one to receive this change of > behavior, as can be seen by its Release Notes: > > o Uri Simchoni <uri at samba...

...ata-dir chmod 770 some_data_dir chmod g+s some-data-dir on a domain-joined host, and only members of the Jones Lab will be able to access this shared data. It all works as expected. Haven't tested POSIX ACLs; will do that next, since we're forced to use these in the absence of RichACLs. There are 2 important things that Samba provides: The first is an open source AD domain controller alternative. At least so far, idM doesn't provide this. The second unique functionality is SMB. NTLM, Netbios and hence nmbd are basically dead. From an architectural perspective, if Sa...

Is idmapd supposed to work where users have different uid numbers on the nfsv4 server and client? It seems to show the right names for ownership on the client side, but if I automount a home directory, that user doesn't have permission to enter it, and if I change permission to allow access and create a new file, it shows on the server as owned by the uid number for the user on the client

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:08:42AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:13:12AM +0100, Matteo Maretto wrote: > > Hi, > > we are migrating our fileserver from an old novell netware system to > > a samba4 system. With netware all ACL were stored in a database, so > > that it was possible to quickly find which files one user or group > > had

...ags & WHO_FLAGS)) > > + return 0; > > + if (a->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO) > > + return a->u.e_who == b->u.e_who; > > + else > > + return a->u.e_id == b->u.e_id; > > +#undef WHO_FLAGS > > +} > > + > > +/** > > + * richacl_set_who - set a special who value > > + * @ace: acl entry > > + * @who: who value to use > > + */ > > +int > > +richace_set_who(struct richace *ace, const char *who) > > +{ > > + if (!strcmp(who, richace_owner_who)) > > + who = richace_owner_who; &...

...data_dir > chmod g+s some-data-dir > > on a domain-joined host, and only members of the Jones Lab will be able > to access this shared data. It all works as expected. Haven't tested > POSIX ACLs; will do that next, since we're forced to use these in the > absence of RichACLs. > > There are 2 important things that Samba provides: The first is an open > source AD domain controller alternative. At least so far, idM doesn't > provide this. The second unique functionality is SMB. NTLM, Netbios and > hence nmbd are basically dead. > > From an a...

On 6/17/19 12:37 PM, Edouard Guign? via samba wrote: > On my linux box (centos 7), I set Samba + Winbind against AD. > But I also set SSSD against AD for an other purpose (sftp access). > > I am wondering if there is no risk to disable sftpd/sssd if I add > winbind in /etc/nsswitch.conf > > Can Winbind and SSSD be installed on the same system if they are not > used for