similar to: Default POSIX ACLs masking later permission edits

Hi list, i'm using Samba 3.0.14a as standalone-pdc with posix-acl-features. On the fileserver i've mounted an ext3 partition to /home /dev/hdc2 /home type ext3 (rw,usrquota,acl) The following directory structur exists on /home /home +-/public_folder (exported per samba as \\fileserver\public ) | +-/a | +-/a_ann | | +-/anyfolder | | +- anyfiles | +-/a_bert | +-/a_sven | +-/a_eve |

Hello samba team ! On my network, I mainly manage my AD users and computers from Unix using shell scripts. So I would like to set the shares' ACLs directly from the DC with the POSIX setfacl command. When exporting with NFSv4, the POSIX ACLs are conserved. I can set the permissions the same manner as for my local users. But on DC, the "rwx" right is mapped to "full

On 17/11/16 13:15, Reinald Gfuellner via samba wrote: > I try to set up a Samba4-based Fileserver in an Samba3-DC enviroment. > Filesystem is ext4, CIFS + NFS4 should be provided. The same ACLs should > be used over both protocols. > > With Samba 3 this was possible (using POSIX 1003.1e DRAFT 17 ACLs only) > . How can I do the same with Samba 4 ? > > Posix-ACLs set on

I have tried to read the documentation, but I was not able to find a clear solution to my problem. I run Samba 3.0.14a on a Debian system with Posix ACLs. I have a share on a file system that uses Posix ACLs, and I have two directories in that share. Both directories have default ACLs set, so that every new file (or directory) created under each directory (by Windows XP/2000 clients)

Look at the acl(5) man page and you'll see that the ACCESS CHECK ALGORITH starts: IF the effective user ID of the process matches the user ID of the file object owner ... ELSE IF the effective user ID of the process matches the qualifier of any entry of type ACL_USER, THEN IF the matching ACL_USER entry and the ACL_MASK entry contain the requested permissions, access is

I try to set up a Samba4-based Fileserver in an Samba3-DC enviroment. Filesystem is ext4, CIFS + NFS4 should be provided. The same ACLs should be used over both protocols. With Samba 3 this was possible (using POSIX 1003.1e DRAFT 17 ACLs only) . How can I do the same with Samba 4 ? Posix-ACLs set on the server with setfacl are recogniced on a windows-client. But every change I do on a

Hi! I am experiencing troubles concerning the inheritance of the setgid bit if a new mailbox is created with dovecot-lda. If it is created with dovecot/imap, everything works fine. dovecot-lda is called from postfix like this: ---------- mailbox_command = /usr/local/sbin/postfix-lda.sh ---------- logger -p mail.info -t postfix-lda "H: $HOME, S: $SENDER, R: $RECIPIENT, U: $(umask), id:

This might be more inclusive if I said, Linux Permissions vs POSIX ACLs vs vfs_xattr. I have recently begun to discover the power and flexibility of using POSIX ACLs (by mounting my EXT3/4 filesystems with the acl option). This solved alot of security permissions issues between Samba and Linux groups of users. As I have delved into this deeper and begun using the VFS object, vfs_xattr, things

Le 13/05/2015 17:29, Rowland Penny a ?crit : > > If you set the acls on a Unix directory with 'chmod' and then set an > ACL with 'setfacl', you will not change the Unix acls, that is, if the > acls are set to '775' and you then set the ACL for a user with > 'setfacl', the Unix acl will still read '775' or 'rwxrwxr-x' , what >

Everyone, I have finally resolved the new heartburn 3.0.24 on Ubuntu Feisty was giving me and have stumbled upon some information that might help others out there. I was seeing problems with ACL entries getting mangled and disappearing, Excel making files read only and extended attributes doing bizarre things. The solution revolved around what appears to be a change in how ACLs are managed.

Hi all, I have "FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #1: Wed Jul 25" authenticating successfully against active directory via samba's winbindd(8). I need to manage samba shares via FreeBSD ACLs and CIFS ACLs. From my reading of setfacl(1) I should be able to set group permissions using the syntax of DOMAIN\group-name. For example: #setfacl -d -m g:"MYDOMAIN\mygroupname":rwx test

A bit of a minor off-topic issue, but on the off-chance that someone understands how ACLs work ... I've been trying to see if using default ACLs would help with the following issue: I have a third party application that is running as a non-root user ('user-a') and creating log files with mode 0600 (read/write only to the owner) in a log directory I have another application that

Time to take a step back: My original problem is that clients can no longer read or update their GPOs. gpupdate fails on the default domain policy, claiming it can't read some files. If I open said file via Explorer on the same user account, it works – with \\domain\sysvol\… as well as when browsing every single DC individually via \\foo-dc\sysvol\… It's hard to tell (I'm running

Hello, I've submitted the following to the bug tracking system, but thought I might find some other answers here. It appears that there is a bug in the ACL code that prevents a ACL or DACL from being applied to directory if the user associated with that ACL is the owner of the file. Consider the following directory structure top->| |->a| |->1 | |->2 |

Hi all, we are experiencing difficulties with posix ACLs using samba 3.0.28 on a Debian 4.0 etch server. The goal is to not let the Windows clients manage the ACLs but instead set the permissions from the Samba server, hence smb.conf says "nt acl support = no". Problems arise when I have a directory with default permissions for a named group, e.g. # file: ACLTest # owner: juergen #

Hello folks, Samba 3.5.6 running and I have following share: [public] path = /data/public read only = No create mask = 0777 directory mask = 0777 directory security mask = 0750 vfs object = acl_xattr nt acl support = yes dos filemode = yes My filesystem ext4 which is mounted to /data supports acl,user_xattr and

Hi all, 1) My NFS3 clients don't display or obey existing non-POSIX ACLs on files of NFS3-mounted exports. 2) setfacl on the client throws error and fails : # setfacl -m u:stowler:rw testfile.text setfacl: testfile.text: Operation not supported 3) at time of client mount the server's /var/log/messages shows "kernel: svc: unknown version (3)". Any thoughts greatly

On 13/05/15 13:38, Mike wrote: > I want to get a better understanding of what's happening between the posix > permissions and windows permissions. Nothing happens between posix permissions (acls) and windows permissions (ACLs), they are different, see: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setup_and_configure_file_shares_with_Windows_ACLs On Unix, you can set read, write and execute/enter

On 13/05/15 16:21, S?bastien Le Ray wrote: > Le 13/05/2015 17:11, Rowland Penny a ?crit : >> On 13/05/15 16:08, S?bastien Le Ray wrote: >>> >>> >>> Le 13/05/2015 17:02, Rowland Penny a ?crit : >>>> On 13/05/15 13:38, Mike wrote: >>>>> I want to get a better understanding of what's happening between >>>>> the posix

Am 15.05.2015 um 16:20 schrieb Mike: > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Klaus Hartnegg <hartnegg at uni-freiburg.de> > wrote: > >> Not sure which email you mean. I don't think that this can happen. If the >> Linux acls are modified, the Windows ACLs are destroyed and all is based on >> the Linux permissions and acls (which looks strange when viewed from