[Samba] Are acl_xattr and admin users option incompatible?

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Tue Aug 10 18:26:24 MDT 2010

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:15:35AM -0400, John Mulligan wrote:
> Hello List,
> I've run into an interesting situation and am wondering if this is by
> design or just an interesting side effect: using both acl_xattr and
> a user in the "admin users" list at the same time seem to conflict.
> I have a tool that is running on a windows box that needs full access
> to files on a given share while ignore individual file and folder
> permissions. We were able to make that tool run as an
> "admin user" in smb.conf.
> When I run the tool with the vfs xattr_acl module turned on (for best
> compatibility with nt acls), the tests fail but when using only straight POSIX
> acls the test works. Running things manually, it appears that running
> with only POSIX acls the root user on the samba side is able to read/write
> any file as expected, but with acl_xattr turned on samba is doing some
> internal checking of the xattr acls and blocking access to the files.
> So my question is, is this by design or is this something that the
> samba team would consider as a bug/feature request?
> Also feel free to tell me "you're doing it wrong" if there is a better
> way to provide read/write access to the windows side regardless of
> the acls on the files. None of my searches turned up anything relevant,
> but its always possible that I was looking in the wrong direction.

Ok, is this with 3.5.x ?

If so, it's a bug - one that has been fixed in the 3.6.0 code
tree. The function smb1_file_se_access_check() in 3.5.x is
directly called from the acl_xattr module, and this code doesn't
taker into account the admin_user status of the calling user.

In 3.6.0 and above, the admin_user status check has been moved
directly into the smb1_file_se_access_check() function so that
it's consistent will all calls for access checking.

Let me know if you want this fix back-porting to 3.5.x, if
so, log a bug at bugzilla.samba.org and I'll create the
patch (it's a reasonably simple fix).


More information about the samba mailing list