native posix permissions

[Shirish Kalele]

The disadvantage is that you'd need to install a client component to make
sense of these unix-acls.

- Shirish
----- Original Message -----
From: Cole, Timothy D. <timothy_d_cole at md.northgrum.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-TECHNICAL <samba-technical at samba.org>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: native posix permissions


> Are the extensions generalized enough to cope with e.g. POSIX ACLs?  If
so,
> it'd seem a significantly better deal than trying to approximate them with
> NT ACLs (or at least a good alternative scheme for users to choose from).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeremy Allison [SMTP:jeremy at valinux.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 16:19
> > To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-TECHNICAL
> > Subject: Re: native posix permissions
> >
> > Claus Färber wrote:
> > >
> > > Hallo.
> > >
> > > I wonder if it's a good idea to add calls to the samba servers that
> > > would export _unix_ file permission read and write functions to
clients.
> > >
> > > These could for example be used by Win32 shell extensions to handle
the
> > > native unix permissions directly, thus avoiding any strange effects
(for
> > > the average user) introduced by the permission bit <-> acl mapping.
> > >
> > > I wonder what would be the best and easiest strategy to implement
that:
> > > ioctls or rpcs?
> >
> > HP have already done this for the CIFS/9000 product.
> > It was done via new trans2 calls in the base SMB protocol
> > as specified by the UNIX-Extentions to CIFS document.
> >
> > We should be integrating that code (thanks HP) shortly
> > (once we're out of printing hell :-) :-).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jeremy Allison,
> > Samba Team.
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Buying an operating system without source is like buying
> > a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
> > --------------------------------------------------------