search for: sec_desc_dacl_protected

...smb_fname->base_name, > psbuf, > - psd); > + psd_blob); > if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) { > TALLOC_FREE(frame); > return status; > @@ -787,23 +787,23 @@ static NTSTATUS get_nt_acl_internal(vfs_handle_struct *handle, > the ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED bit, as ACLs > can't be inherited in this way under POSIX. > Remove it for Windows-style ACLs. */ > - psd->type &= ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED; > + psd_blob->type &= ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED; > } > } > > if (!(security_info & SEC...

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 06:33:26PM +0200, Ralph Böhme via samba wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14:00PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:06:42PM +0200, Ralph Böhme via samba wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, as much as I'd like to avoid adding a new option, I guess we > > > have to do something about it, my latest take on this is >

...smb_fname->base_name, > psbuf, > - psd); > + psd_blob); > if (!NT_STATUS_IS_OK(status)) { > TALLOC_FREE(frame); > return status; > @@ -787,23 +787,23 @@ static NTSTATUS get_nt_acl_internal(vfs_handle_struct *handle, > the ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED bit, as ACLs > can't be inherited in this way under POSIX. > Remove it for Windows-style ACLs. */ > - psd->type &= ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED; > + psd_blob->type &= ~SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED; > } > } > > if (!(security_info & SEC...

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 04:03:49PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 02:46:19PM -0700, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 06:44:05PM +0200, Ralph Böhme wrote: > > > > > > Cheerio! > > > -slow > > > > Still reviewing this - but a few things that will need changing: > > > > When adding the

...SEC_DESC_DACL_TRUSTED > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_SERVER_SECURITY > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED > ??????????????1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED > ??????????????0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID > ??????????????1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE > ???????owner_sid ???????????????: * > ???????????owner_sid ???????????????: S-1-22-1-1000 > ???????group_sid ???????????????: * > ???????????group...

...STED > 0: SEC_DESC_SERVER_SECURITY > 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED > 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED > 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID > 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE > owner_sid : * > owner_sid : S-1-22-1-65534 > group_sid : * &g...

On 11/04/2023 13:36, Gary Dale via samba wrote: > On 2023-04-11 04:15, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >> >> >> What 'Debian distribution-specific' installation did you follow ? > The one linked to in AD DC wiki. Where abouts is this link ? I checked here: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller But couldn't

...SEC_DESC_DACL_PRESENT 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_DEFAULTED 1: SEC_DESC_SACL_PRESENT 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_DEFAULTED 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_TRUSTED 0: SEC_DESC_SERVER_SECURITY 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE owner_sid: * owner_sid: S-1-5-21-940051827-2291820289-3341758437-512 group_sid: * group_sid: S-1-5-21-940051827-2291820289-3341758437-512 sacl: NULL dacl: * dacl: struct security_acl revision: SECURITY_ACL_...

..._SECURITY >>> 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ >>> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ >>> 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED >>> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED >>> 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED >>> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED >>> 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID >>> 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE >>> owner_sid : * >>> owner_sid : S-1-22-1-65534 &...

...0: SEC_DESC_SERVER_SECURITY >> 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ >> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ >> 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED >> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED >> 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED >> 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED >> 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID >> 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE >> owner_sid : * >> owner_sid : S-1-22-1-65534 >> g...

Maybe I'm doing somthing really stupid, but while copying some windows share onto a samba server, on some random subdirectory robocopy says ERROR 87 (0x00000057) Copying NTFS Security to Destination Directory... The samba logfile has lots of these lines. modules/vfs_posixacl.c:349(smb_acl_to_posix) smb_acl_to_posix: ACL is invalid for set (Das Argument ist ung?ltig) The strange thing is

...0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ > 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED > 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED > 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED > 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID > 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE > owner_sid : * > owner_sid...

...0: SEC_DESC_DACL_TRUSTED 0: SEC_DESC_SERVER_SECURITY 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERIT_REQ 1: SEC_DESC_DACL_AUTO_INHERITED 1: SEC_DESC_SACL_AUTO_INHERITED 0: SEC_DESC_DACL_PROTECTED 0: SEC_DESC_SACL_PROTECTED 0: SEC_DESC_RM_CONTROL_VALID 1: SEC_DESC_SELF_RELATIVE owner_sid : * owner_sid : S-1-5-21-801203796-115225906-466470621-512 group_sid : *...

I've been been trying to investigate this for sometime now, hence I came to the experts :) I have rejoined all my DC's with new names, see below. ;; ANSWER SECTION: <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS psad101zatcrh.<domain>.corp. -> New rebuild, new hostname, RHEL6 to RHEL7 upgrade <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS prdc001zafsrh.<domain>.corp. -> New

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 --