Samba 3.0.20 read-only behaviour

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 16:05 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:55:15AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 18:17 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:50:28AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, I should store dos attributes on every file on my filesystem, to
> > > > stop Samba over-zealously marking files as such?  I just think the logic
> > > > in this is all backwards:  Now we have this EA storage you are so fond
> > > > of, why do we need to force it based on permissions?
> > > >
> > > > DOS attributes and access control are different things, and I think this
> > > > is undue mixing.
> > > 
> > > If you want to decouple DOS attributes from permissions, you need
> > > to mark a file as such. Samba has historically used the lack of 
> > > the everyone unix "w" bit to denote read-only. It's only since we have
> > > EA's that we've been able to decouple the two. 
> > 
> > So why did you increase the coupling?  With EAs now there was no need
> > for this change was there?
> 
> Because users on the lists requested it. They were puzzled why files
> they could write to (via an ACL) were being shown as "read-only" and
> requested the change.

These were files missing owner write permission?  Was that the result of
some ACL mapping weirdness?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc.        http://suse.de
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net
-------------- 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 : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20051014/c008687f/attachment.bin