similar to: Are acl_xattr and admin users option incompatible?

On Thursday, July 07, 2016 01:46:59 PM Rowland penny wrote: > On 07/07/16 13:09, John Mulligan wrote: > > Hi Samba team, > > > > Digging through some old code and commits while trying to understand some > > ACL related behavior we found the following: > > > > https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=6dcbb84d485b8a8ccf0c3a70 > >

Hi, I cannot edit ACLs from Windows any more since I added "vfs object = recycle" to one share. ACLs still work on other shares. I have "vfs objects = acl_xattr" in the global section. Is this incompatible with recycle? The strange thing is that even after commenting out "recycle" and reloading smb.conf, ACLs still don't work on that share. Do I need to

Hello samba list, We're trialling Samba 3.6 and on some of our systems I see the following type of messages in the smbd and winbind logs: [2012/03/16 17:28:59.038177, 0] ../lib/util/tdb_wrap.c:65(tdb_wrap_log) tdb(/var/lib/samba/messages.tdb): tdb_oob len 663932 beyond eof at 12288 [2012/03/16 17:28:59.038331, 0] ../lib/util/tdb_wrap.c:65(tdb_wrap_log)

Hi Samba team, Digging through some old code and commits while trying to understand some ACL related behavior we found the following: https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=6dcbb84d485b8a8ccf0c3a70d9f5f7e951aaf1c6 While the commit message itself provides some context the subject mentions fixing "one of the last two bugs with the full Windows ACL support" without

I am using authlogic as a authentication engine in my rails app. I have two types of users 1) Users who are registered and has access to there own profile. 2) Admin user who has access to everybody''s profile In the user table i have a :is_admin field boolean field which defines the admin user. like the current_user method, Is there a way authlogic provides which can tell me if the

Is behavior of ACLs under Samba 3.3.0 (Sernet) completely different from that under version 3.2.7? The release notes only talks about some "fixes". I installed version 3.3.0 and got completely different result with the same filesystem and the exact same samba configuration. The ACLs behaved strangely and appeared very different under Windows ACL editor. Users were now unable to

Hello all, we want to change the configuration of our Samba domain member file servers to use unix_primary_group=yes After some experiments I was able to get it to work, but only with vfs objects = acl_xattr commented out. With acl_xattr enabled the primary group is still displayed correctly in the output of smbstatus, but new files are not created with with this primary group. The

Dear list, Setup is: Solaris 11 ZFS + Samba 3.5.10 What is the recommended way nowadays of performing strict permissions mapping between Samba and Windows NT 6.1 ? And a more broader question: is it desirable ? As we know ZFS has native NFSv4 ACL's and this would mean that permissions applied on Windows side should have an exact match on the ZFS side. Is it acl_xattr module still needed ?

Hi there. I just switched from icecast1 to icecast2. Right now I'm not sure if that was a very good idea. I do like the ogg-support, but I lack a good amount of documentation (Hey, I'd be glad to help you out, but how can there be consistent documentation for a software that is only available through cvs(-snapshots)?) and good linux source clients. I used xmms-liveice or muse before, but

Hello everyone, I''ve decided to take the step into creating a mini-forum for my website where users can open new posts on exixting topics and allow people to discuss things etc... I am following a tutorial in the book: APRESS - Practical Rails Social Networking Sites and have hit a minor issue. Part of the Forum requirements is to add a moderator role to allow only certain individuals

Hi folks, No, it does not work. Sorry for the noise. See below. On 31.01.2024 8:51, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > Hi folks, > > Thanks everybody for your information. > > I have continued my testing and have got the following to report: > > Setting up the share with either root:"Domain Admins", or > "Administrator":"Domain Admins" as

Problem solved (I hope)! On 31.01.2024 12:40, Ralph Boehme via samba wrote: > On 1/31/24 12:02, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >> Which looks correct to myself, so a bug ? > something to look into in more detail, ie logs and network traces. :) > > -slow Hi folks, I added the following parameter to the share definition in smb.conf: acl_xattr:default acl style = windows Now the

On 1/31/24 11:19, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > When I logged into Windows and connected to a share that has > 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes' set and right clicked on its icon > in Explorer and selected 'Properties', I found that 'EVERYONE' was > listed. I removed 'EVERYONE', clicked 'Apply' then 'OK', which > completed

On 1/31/24 12:02, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > Which looks correct to myself, so a bug ? something to look into in more detail, ie logs and network traces. :) -slow -- SerNet Samba Team Lead https://samba.plus/ Samba Team Member https://samba.org/ SAMBA+ packages https://samba.plus/ SerNet Samba Support, Consulting and Development -------------- next part

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:53:44 +0100 Ralph Boehme <slow at samba.org> wrote: > On 1/31/24 11:19, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > When I logged into Windows and connected to a share that has > > 'acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes' set and right clicked on its > > icon in Explorer and selected 'Properties', I found that 'EVERYONE' > > was

Hello, I'd like to know if, when using acl_xattr to store Windows ACLs in the security.NTACL extended attribute, Samba knows to always to set the attribute within the "root" context, or will it attempt to do it in the (domain) user context that's requesting the change? As I understand it, on Linux only root is allowed to modify extended attributes in the "security"

Does you filesystem support extended attributes? What does "|getfattr -n security.NTACL |filename" return?|| On 30.01.2024 16:13, Peter Milesson wrote: > Hi folks, > > It seems that the setting acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes reduces > Windows compatibility when defined for a share. In all attempts I have > used Windows tools (except editing smb.conf) > > Assume

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:13:41 +0100 Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi folks, > > It seems that the setting acl_xattr:ignore system acls = yes reduces > Windows compatibility when defined for a share. In all attempts I > have used Windows tools (except editing smb.conf) Lets walk through the relevant part of that parameter: 'ignore system

Dear all I am looking for a solution for a module to define alle possible user and then install the one or more user from that module if needed on a server, but not all of them. My idea is something like this. Can I define a user in the nodes.pp at a special Server to install that user? init.pp class admin_user::group { group { "group1": gid => "888",

I was testing Samba 4.5rc2 with an existing smb.conf file that I have been using since Samba 4.1.x and found that I cannot access data in the share on Windows 2012 (my AD server), a Windows 2008 client or on a Ubuntu 16.04 client. I built a new version of Samba 4.4.5 using the same procedure as I did for building 4.5rc2 and the 4.4.5 Samba version worked with my smb.conf file. I then created a