[PATCH] Fix bug #9932 - Currently the maximum number of aces in an SD is limited to 1000, but Microsoft supports around 1800

Simo idra at samba.org
Sat Jun 8 20:06:24 MDT 2013

On 06/08/2013 06:08 PM, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 19:40 -0400, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
>>>> Richard, please review and push if you're ok with it.
>>>> Jeremy.
>>>> <0001-Fix-bug-9932-Currently-the-maximum-number-of-aces-in.patch>
>>> I had a bit of a side bar with Richard about this a while ago. IIRC, I thought it depends on the size of the ACEs in the ACL?  That is, the aggregate size of the ACL. :/
>> The limit in the IDL was added as an attempt to avoid allocating
>> infinite amounts of memory attempting to parse structures that are not
>> plausible.  Changing it a little shouldn't hurt, but I agree this might
>> not be how windows enforces this.
> The evidence we have is that the clients enforce this. If you build an
> ACL that will result in an SD larger than 64kiB it refuses to even let
> the SD hit the wire.
> >From that perspective, 1,800 is not quite correct because we have seen
> ACLs with 1818 succeed. That, of course, relates to the fact that
> S-1-5-21-x-y-z-rid is larger than S-1-1-0 or S-1-5-32-544 etc.
Shouldn't the fix then calculate the maximum possible number of ACEs
with the smallest SID on all of them that can fit in 64KiB and use that
as the max number and at the same time add some code to check the size
of the ACL and correctly refuse anything bigger than what the actual
underlying file system can accept.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list