search for: stilezi

This is slightly off-topic, I guess, but I'm not sure who better to ask for help. I'm active within the FreeNAS community and involved in their (FreeBSD based) documentation work. There is a long standing bug ticket - years old now - to update their "network ups tools" docs page, to cover Ethernet attached UPS that use nut for the link. Currently the docs mainly describes

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 use-cases. I'm guessing this list is a good enough starting point to propose a smb.conf param change to this area and see what

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 use-cases.  I'm guessing this list is a >

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 >>

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 = 1 so no value need be given explicitly). Which of these is correct? Thanks, Stilez

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 for anything to do with symlink scope, it's important to know what each of them allows/blocks and where they differ. Interestingly, only the

Thanks - that much I (pretty much) got. Its really the "wide links" option that isn't well distinguished/clarified. *insecure* wide links is much more clear, although the detail you've given helps a lot. What exactly is the "ordinary" "wide links = yes" option going to do (with or without Unix extensions), and how does it compare/how much exposure to

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, it *also* prevents the user from creating or modifying symlinks on the share, so in wffect it inherently prevents this being