[Samba] Mishandling read only files in 3.0.20b vs 3.0.21c
andyliebman at aol.com
Wed Mar 22 03:28:13 GMT 2006
I noticed a few days ago running Samba 3.0.20b on Linux that if I had a
file called "myfile" that was owned by "userA:groupX", writable by
userA but read only for groupX
0744 userA:groupX myfile
and that file was in a directory "/directory2/myfile" which was writable
by the group "groupX"
0775 userA:groupX directory2
and directory2 was in directory1 which was also writable by groupX
0755 userA:groupX directory1
if as "userB, member of groupX" I connected to a Samba share that
contained the above directory structure, and the smb.conf file gave
groupX permission to write to the share, as userB I was unable to move
"myfile" out of directory1 and put it in directory2, or vice versa.
Upon trying to move the file, Windows XP SP2 told me that the file was
Read Only and asked if I really wanted to move it. Then Windows gave me
an Access Denied error.
Running Samba 3.0.13 previously on the same Linux box, with exactly the
same smb.conf file, moving myfile back and forth between directories was
not an issue. Also, when I upgraded to Samba 3.0.21c, the issue went away.
My question is, are you (Samba folks) experimenting with something
here?. I have some Windows and Macintosh applications that will warn you
when you open a read only file on a local disk. That can be useful, so
that you don't waste time modifying a file that you won't be able to
save. With Samba 3.0.13, and Samba 3.0.21c, if the file is located in a
Samba share, you don't get the warning until you try to save the file.
With Samba 3.0.20b it was useful to get the warnings. However, it was
BAD that Samba 3.0.20b didn't follow Linux rules where the permissions
of the directory containing the file should determine if the file can be
moved or deleted or overwritten.
Any comments or insights into where you are heading with this?
More information about the samba