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

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


Richard:

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
________________________________

Ken Cross

Network Storage Solutions
Phone 865.675.4070 ext 31
kcross at nssolutions.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> samba-technical-bounces+kcross=nssolutions.com at lists.samba.org
>  
> [mailto:samba-technical-bounces+kcross=nssolutions.com at lists.s
> amba.org] On Behalf Of Richard Sharpe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:22 PM
> To: samba-technical at samba.org
> 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]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, 
> sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
> 



More information about the samba-technical mailing list