similar to: Changes in Linux CIFS Kernel Module w.r.t. ACL features

Hi Kraus, I know that Gluster can be exported over NFS-Ganesha (supports v4.X), Samba (protocol 1.0 in order to get 'real' permissions), Apple's stuff and if you rebuild the source - you can use the built-in gNFS (supports NFS v3 over tcp) all at once. Yet, I'm not sure about the ACLs, so you should either test it yourself or ask on the gluster mailing list. Deployment

FreeNAS / FreeBSD have native NFSv4 ACLs. They do however lack kernel oplock support so there are perhaps some caveats in that regard. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:07 PM Strahil Nikolov via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi Kraus, > > I know that Gluster can be exported over NFS-Ganesha (supports v4.X), > Samba (protocol 1.0 in order to get 'real'

Hi all, are there any non-commercial solutions (apart from solutions like Dell EMC, IBM and NetApp) around that allow to simultaneously access the same file system via NFSv4 and Samba exports in a (nearly) non-conflicting manner, especially w.r.t. to NFSv4/Windows ACL incompatibilities? Best Sebatian ____________________ Sebastian Kraus Team IT am Institut f?r Chemie Geb?ude C, Stra?e des 17.

Hi all, I am testing different setups for Samba home share mounts via the CIFS protocol on Linux clients with and without Keberos security (both krb5 and krb5i). I am experiencing some strange behaviour in case of Kerberos authentication: In case of mounts (by root or the user itself) without Kerberos security (only NTLMv2 authentication), local root and the owning user on the Linux client

Dear samba folks, I have a special question regarding the simultaneous operation of nscd and winbindd on the same host: We are running in a Samba file server setup where the nsswitch.conf looks like this: passwd: files ldap group: files ldap shadow: files ldap hosts: files dns wins networks: files protocols: db files services: db files

Dear Jeremy, thanks for your instant reply. :-) Along with Linux native getfacl/fetfacl, I also tested getcifsacl/setcifsacl (for sure thoroughly ;-)). Unfortunately, these CIFS client tools seem to have been designed as part of the "old" CIFS Unix Extensions, working only for SMB/CIFS mounts, and are not supposed to work with SMB2/SMB3 mounts, as I guess. During my tests, the

Dear all, what is about the support for POSIX ACL in Samba protocol implementation of SMB2 and SMB3? >From what I extracted from SNIA and SambaXP developer conference talks and as well as the official Samba Wiki, support for POSIX ACL in SMB2 and SMB3 has been completely abandonned. Am I right? If so, is there any other possibility to allow Linux Clients to natively access access control lists

Thanks for the first reply, Jeremy. What about the (future) implementation of RichACL? Will there be any native Linux Client support along with the SMB2/SMB3 protocol? I know, there is a native implemenation for RichACLs in ext4 FS. Unfortunately, smbcals is not a native Linux ACL Tool and has a very unhandy syntax. I just tested some days ago. ;-) I am looking for a solution that allows the

Could you see if anything useful in the logs indicating why the ACL was not returned? Instructions are at: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/LinuxCIFS_troubleshooting#Enabling_Debugging (it is easier for newer kernels due to dynamic tracing e.g. "trace-cmd record -e cifs" but even with these older kernels it should be enough information in the dmesg logs - if not a wireshark trace

Hi Jeremy, Hi Steve, Hi Ronnie, thanks for your replies and the profound discussion. I think, it's best to demonstrate my problem case along an real world example: The following log of a console sesssion shows how I am doing the mounts on behalf Linux Kernel CIFS-FS Module on the client side against a Samba 4.5 file server (both running on Debian Stretch 9.8) via SMB/CIFS resp. SMB2 protocol:

We've had a number of changes since the last release, and we have some other upcoming kernel changes that might require corresponding cifs-utils changes. So it's probably as good a time as any for a new release. Highlights: + fix for a minor security issue that can corrupt the mtab + new getcifsacl/setcifsacl tools that allow you to fetch and set raw Windows ACLs via an xattr. + a

On 9/25/20 12:23 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 25/09/2020 17:15, Ken Bass via samba wrote: >> On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >>> Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >>>> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >>>> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no

Hai,   ( not all on samba topic but one i wanted to share. )   I did read :  https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/LinuxCIFSKernel mainly because of, from that page, 4.7 Kernel Fix badlock regression for guest mounts (mount with -o guest can fail to Samba servers when patched for badlock). I encountered such a problem yesterday. Luckly not in the office..   The fix. Cifs.ko version

On 25/09/2020 10:14, Aur?lien Aptel via samba wrote: > Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. > It's still hard to say at this point. > > cifs.idmap

Hello dovecot-users, we're running Debian 7.9 with dovecot from Stephan Bosch's repository: deb http://xi.rename-it.nl/debian/ oldstable-auto/dovecot-2.2 main Starting with dovecot 2.2.20-1 build 28, we suddenly discovered that some mails (to be locally delivered) "got stuck". dovecot's log revealed messages like the following one: Dec 29 09:56:50 mailhost dovecot:

Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are > suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no > overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. It's still hard to say at this point. cifs.idmap logs messages in the syslog. Can you try mounting with cifsacl, then look at logs

On 25/09/2020 17:15, Ken Bass via samba wrote: > On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >> Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: >>> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are >>> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no >>> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl. >>

On 24/09/2020 17:18, Ken Bass via samba wrote: > On 9/24/20 12:10 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> On 24/09/2020 16:58, Ken Bass via samba wrote: >>> On 9/24/20 11:51 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote: >>>> The request-keys config looks right. >>>> >>>> You can check if winbind is properly configured trying to map with the >>>> winbind

Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes: > 'S-1-5-18' is SYSTEM and from the looks of it, neither cifs.idmap or > winbind maps it on a Unix domain member (it does map on a Samba DC). It > is hard to understand from the manpages, does cifsacls use the same ID's > as Winbind, or does it calculate its own ? * cifsacl is the mount option. * When

On 9/24/20 1:06 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > OK, you are using users & groups in the 1000-29999 range, why ? could > it be that you have the same users in /etc/passwd and AD ? On my Linux installs, I allow for a 'local' account with user id 1000. That is the only local account and is used for installing the OS (or in case AD is down). All other user/group accounts are