Hidden,System Attributes on Directories
nick at dccinc.com
Thu Jan 24 14:36:07 GMT 2002
We do want the backend (unix) files to be portable, such that, if you
tar/cpio the samba files from one flavor of unix to another, they appear
identical to the windows clients.
I don't know if the suid/guid/sticky bits are portable across unixes. If
so, then it seems like a reasonable place to store the directory
attributes. However, there are already extended NT File attribults (ACLs,
Streams, Unicode(?)) that do not map directly to the underlying Unix
system, so some provision must be made to store that information
separately from the actual files.
Surely the development community has dealt with this issue before. Can
anyone shed some light?
[sorry, in advance, if this topic is a common one]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Brodbeck wrote:
> Under Linux it'd make more sense to store the DOS attributes as extended
> user attributes, but obviously that wouldn't be portable. There are other
> problems with doing it the way it's currently done...for example, if a
> program manages to set the execute bit on a file, the file becomes hidden.
> Photoshop does this for some bizarre reason.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Eggleston [mailto:nick at dccinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: samba at lists.samba.org
> Cc: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Hidden,System Attributes on Directories
> Setting Hidden, System, or Archive bits on DIRECTORIES does not work
> (Samba Ver 2.2.2) . We have it working fine for files, where is maps
> those permissions to the X flags under Unix. However, directories on Unix
> require those bits for normal operation, so they would have to be mapped
> to some other bits (probably suid, sgid and sticky bits) for directories.
> Unfortunately, I can find no configuration parameters that discuss this
> [the only other option I can see would me to have a secret look-aside file
> that stored these setting out-of-band]
> Would someone(s) please comment on this issue? Has it been addressed
> previously? Am I just missing something obvious?
More information about the samba-technical