search for: stilez

Meanwhile it appears to contradict. Is there any reason not to update the vfs doc to reflect the old situation pre-bugfix and the current suggested values? On 8 March 2018 9:28:30 pm Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:48PM +0000, Stilez via samba wrote: >> In the vfs pages for aio_pthread, it gives as an example for aio read/write >> size, 1024 for each and states an "appropriate" value must be set. >> >> Byt in smb.conf it states that the only reasonable values are 0 or 1 (also >> that ther...

...uot;ordinary" "wide links = yes" option going to do (with or without Unix extensions), and how does it compare/how much exposure to mischief does it expose? On 28 February 2018 18:20:02 Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 01:39:09PM +0000, Stilez via samba wrote: >> I'd like to understand reasonably fully,, the difference between the two >> options "wide links" and "allow insecure wide links" in smb.conf. The docs >> make them sound very similar but as there are obvious security implications >&gt...

...from crossing a device boundary onto another device (similar to "ls|rm|find -x", using stat to determine same file system), or something else (in which case what?) Thanks for the help! Last thing - how can this helpful info added to smb.conf doc/man pages where it might help others? Stilez On 28 February 2018 19:48:37 Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 07:30:45PM +0000, Stilez wrote: >> Thanks - that much I (pretty much) got. >> >> Its really the "wide links" option that isn't well distinguished/clarified. &...

...ves as an example for aio read/write size, 1024 for each and states an "appropriate" value must be set. Byt in smb.conf it states that the only reasonable values are 0 or 1 (also that there's a default = 1 so no value need be given explicitly). Which of these is correct? Thanks, Stilez

...nce. Assuming that "follow symlinks" is at its default "yes", what is the practical and security difference/implication between enabling these two params? (NB - if someone wants to update the docs for "wide links", it might be worthwhile to add more there.) Thanks, Stilez

...s. (As an aside, I haven't assumed regex because I figure this is way powerful enough for the majority of uses that aren't currently configurable, and Samba needs to be fast but regex is expensive. Not much gain, lots of potential cost.) Feedback and suggestions/comments sought? Thanks, Stilez

...obody (including the team itself) actually seems to be very sure which is somewhat intriguing! To save dabbling in the codebase, does anyone happen to know for sure what the data in these fields is used for, off the top of their head? Thanks for any help you can give. Any assistance appreciated! Stilez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20180330/33421bf5/attachment.html>

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:36:14PM +0000, Stilez wrote: > Thank you. > > So, If I understand correctly, "ordinary" "wide links = yes", means Samba > *will* traverse an existing symlink that points outside the root of the > share, if permissions allow. However because it *also* disables SMB1 Unix > extensions...

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:48PM +0000, Stilez via samba wrote: > In the vfs pages for aio_pthread, it gives as an example for aio read/write > size, 1024 for each and states an "appropriate" value must be set. > > Byt in smb.conf it states that the only reasonable values are 0 or 1 (also > that there's a default =...

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:48:02AM +0000, Stilez Stilezy wrote: > As mentioned in another thread, I notice that the params used to control > symlinks feel a bit inefficient and inelegant, and quite limited.  I think > there might be a good opportunity to simplify and also make their management in > Samba more powerful and adaptable to...