[Samba] Incorrect permissions on mount despite correct options

[Tim Starr]

Michael,
	Thank you very much for at least that much information. I had not 
looked at /etc/groups, doh. At least now I understand the source of the 
problem. Hopefully from there I can make progress and perhaps with some 
help from, as you called them, "the experts", I can disable this 
feature and just have the volume inherit the permissions I want it to 
have. Although I have to admit that is a nice feature and I'll have to 
remember to take advantage of that. I feel really stupid not having 
read more on this. I appreciate your information. I'll be reading much 
more on that subject now! Thanks again and I hope to hear more replies! 
Thanks again.
												- Tim Starr

On Apr 18, 2004, at 3:20 AM, Michael Carmack wrote:

> Tim Starr wrote:
>> The problem was that it was/is being mounted under the following 
>> permissions:
>> tstarr at host:~/mount$ ls -l
>> total 0
>> drwxr-xr-x    1 501      dialout         0 Apr  7 20:39 Audio
>> drwxrwxr-x    1 501      dialout         0 Apr  9 01:29 Desktop
>> Now I have no user 501 on my system and no dialout group either. Odd.
>
> With Linux kernel 2.6.x and 2.4.25+, CIFS Unix extensions are in 
> effect, allowing you to view and manipulate Unix-y things like 
> symlinks and suid/sgid files using Samba.
>
> This also has the effect that the Unix UIDs and GIDs from the server 
> get passed to the client.
>
> If you look on the server, you'll see that "501" is the numeric ID for 
> the user that actually owns the file. And though you may not be aware 
> of it, you *should* have a group called "dialout" on the Linux 
> machine. (Look at /etc/group to confirm.) You'll notice that the 
> numeric ID for the "dialout" group on your Linux machine maps to the 
> numeric ID for the file's group on the server.
>
> [In case you were wondering what the point of this is, these changes 
> make Samba play nicer with Unix machines. It makes it possible to 
> replace something like NFS with Samba.]
>
> In the 2.4 series (as of 2.4.25), the Unix extensions are an optional 
> configuration of the Linux kernel (i.e. you enable or disable this 
> when building the kernel). I haven't looked at 2.6 yet, but I suspect 
> it's also optional there. I don't know whether you can turn this 
> behavior off or on after the kernel is built (using a mount option or 
> a /proc setting or something), as I just started using it myself.
>
> FWIW, I've encountered a couple pitfalls myself. I think maybe there 
> are still some issues to work out, so if Samba was previously doing 
> everything you needed it to and you don't need the Unixy features, you 
> might want to use a kernel that has these entensions disabled.
>
> (Just a slight caution: I haven't spent a lot of time using Samba, so 
> I may be a little off with some of the things I just said. If so, 
> hopefully the experts will set the record straight.)
>
> m.
>