Problems with the lack of a real RO bit with Samba ...

Ken Cross kcross at
Wed Feb 19 22:06:12 GMT 2003


Please define "an appropriate ACL on the file".

Yes, it could have significant impact.  Is there are problem with the
current way it's set (RO == owner "r" mode)?


Ken Cross

Network Storage Solutions
Phone 865.675.4070 ext 31
kcross at 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> at
> [ at lists.s
>] On Behalf Of Richard Sharpe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:22 PM
> To: samba-technical at
> Subject: Problems with the lack of a real RO bit with Samba ...
> Hi,
> I am currently engaged in a debate about the desirability of 
> implementing 
> a real RO bit in our file system (we already have HIDDEN, SYSTEM, and 
> ARCHIVE bits). The problem with RO is that it requires some real 
> semantics, and you have to worry about UNIX semantics when files are 
> shared between Windows and UNIX.
> The current proposal is to do something like what Samba does, 
> synthesize 
> the RO bit with ACLs on the file/object.
> Now, Windows has a RO bit and ACLS, and you can have ACLs on 
> the file that 
> give everyone WRITE access, while the RO bit gives no one 
> WRITE access.
> My question is, is anyone aware of any real application that would be 
> confused if the RO bit were synthesized by setting an 
> appropriate ACL on 
> the file?
> I am aware that this could mean that if an inappropriate ACL 
> were added to 
> the file, perhaps by mistake (when setting ACLs on all files 
> in a tree), 
> the RO bit could disappear.
> Regards
> -----
> Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at], rsharpe[at], 
> sharpe[at],

More information about the samba-technical mailing list