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