Security-level permission not working as expected on samba3.5.15
sandeepnagamalli at gmail.com
Mon May 26 12:02:19 MDT 2014
Thank you, for answering my query. Please find my responses inline below:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Richard Sharpe <
realrichardsharpe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, sandeep nag <sandeepnagamalli at gmail.com>
> > We use samba 3.5.15 code with acl_xattr module for acl support. Here are
> > the observations I made, when I tried setting share-level, security-level
> > permissions on a samba share:
> > 1. Share-level permissions are working as expected. i.e in our
> > When read-only share-level permission is set for the user,
> > and when the user tries to create folder/file, it is throwing an error
> > saying permission denied.
> What throws an error? The client? Also, we usually say it returns an error
[Sandeep] DR is returning a 'permission denied' error to the windows
client and this is expected behavior. Bellow 2 are the actal issues seen:
a. Issue is mentioned in point#3 below.
b. Issue is mentioned in point#2 below. Unlike as on 2008 windows boxes
windows file-systems, on a mounted DR container, we are able set different
share-level and file-level permissions. For eg: We are able to set,
read&write for an user on share-level and read-only permission of the same
user in file-permissions.
> > 2. On 2008 windows boxes, general behavior on any share folder is: if we
> > set one of the Share or Security-level permission, other would convert to
> > the same. i.e we cannot set one of it to read-only and other to
> > permissions.
> Can you describe exactly what happens to the underlying file-level
> permissions when you set a share-level permission?
[Sandeep] On 2008 windows box, When I set share-level permission on a
shared-folder to read-only, automatically an ACE is getting added to the
file-level ACLs list. Now, If I convert the file-level ACE to full-control
the the share-level permission is getting converted to read&write
> Does Windows change the underlying file-level permissions? I hope not.
> > 3. Whereas on our samba3.5.15, #2 above is not seen. We are able to set
> > Share-level to read&write and Security-levvel permission to read-only.
> > And with such kind of settings, it is allowing to create/write a
> > file/directory, though there are no enough security-level permissions.
> > 4. So, the behavior mentioned in #3 above is not following the rule: i.e
> > ‘The Afffective permission for the user should be the lesser of the two
> > rights(share-level, security-level)’.
> > 5. I have tried debugging the issue by placing break points in
> > smbd_check_access_rights(), se_accesss_right() and has observed that for
> > the test-case:
> > share-level read&write permission given for 'everyone' and
> > read-only security-level permission given for the share is not working as
> > expected, i.e the user with just read-only security-level permissions
> > is able to create files and directories in the shared-folder.
> This should not happen. That is because Samba should check the the
> share-level permissions before allowing those creates. In particular,
> there were issues when creating files/folders, which only checked the
> permissions on the parent folder and failed to check the share-level
> permissions, I think. There is likely a simple check you can add.
> This is likely because of known bugs. Many of these were fixed in
> Samba 3.6.x, so you could look at the Samba 3.6.x code in the same
[Sandeep] Yes, As I mentioned in #1 above, there are no issues with
Share-level permissions. Issue is seen only in file-level permission.
Sure shall I upgrade to 3.6.23 and check the behavior? Is 3.6.23 is good in
> > Please help me in knowing whether I am missing something, or this is the
> > known-issue in smaba 3.5.15?.
> As Rowland Penny says, this is no longer the current release of Samba.
> It is way out of date. However, I do know that you do not have the
> flexibility to move to a more recent version.
> Richard Sharpe
More information about the samba-technical