Should windows Exe files need unix Exe permissions?

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Mon Dec 30 04:07:00 GMT 2002

On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 14:37, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> This code on line 203 of smbd/posix_acls.c maps the unix execute
> permission to the windows execute.  
> 	if (mode & S_IXUSR) {
> 		if (conn->vfs_ops.sys_acl_add_perm(conn, *p_permset, SMB_ACL_EXECUTE)
> == -1)
> 			return -1;
> 	}
> This would not normally be a problem - we completely ignore this when
> clients attempt to execute files located on an SMB share.  However, this
> ACL is downloaded with user profiles, and this means that a PIF on a
> user's start menu cannot be executed (this is a mandatory profile, the
> user has read/write perms, but doesn't own it).
> Considering that we also use that bit for 'map archive', should we
> really be using it for execute too?  It also seems odd for windows .exes
> to need exe status under unix...
> I would propose that execute permissions (windows site) be put with
> 'normal' reads.
> What do people think?
> In the meantime I'll just set the exe bit - or actually, I'm going to
> write a VFS module that will set the bit for me ;-)

Adding a complication - you would still need the exe permission to apply
for directories, because windows and unix have the same meaning for at
least that part of the system.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list