[Samba] Samba vs Linux file permissions
Robert W. Smith
rwsmith at bislink.net
Fri Jun 3 10:24:52 MDT 2011
Yes, I agree that you should not install from source--I meant to imply
if you could get a deb package for your Ubuntu Server 10.10.
I did not enable ACLs and User Extended Attributes until I installed the
first iteration of the Samba 3.5 branch on my Fedora 13 server (I'm
about to upgrade to Fedora 15) so I am not sure what issues you might
have using Samba 3.4.7.
Using the User Extended Attributes are convenient for two purposes:
1) it allows Samba to store the DOS Attributes (ReadOnly, Archive,
Hidden, and I think a few others) in a separate xattr. This frees you
from having to manage these attributes using the Linux permission bits.
2) It allows Samba to store the full NT ACLs as an xattr. The initial NT
ACLs will be based on the POSIX ACLs which should also be enabled.
You can enable ACLs and User Extended Attributes on a share-by-share
basis. I would start off by creating a test volume (if you can carve one
out of your LVM) and creating a test share with it in Samba. For
example, here my my configuration for a group share:
comment = Public Share on %h
path = /home/shared
valid users = +domadmins, +domusers, +domguests
write list = +domadmins, +domusers
force group = domusers
; create mask = 0664
; force create mode = 0660
; directory mask = 0002
; force directory mode = 0770
inherit permissions = yes
inherit acls = yes
map acl inherit = yes
acl group control = yes
ea support = yes
vfs object = acl_xattr recycle
store dos attributes = yes
map archive = no
map hidden = no
map system = no
map readonly = no
The mount configuration in /etc/fstabs is:
/dev/mapper/vg1-home /home ext3 defaults,acl,user_xattr 1 2
And the POSIX ACls on /home/shared:
# getfacl shared
# file: shared
# owner: root
# group: users
# flags: -s-
I like the fact that I no longer have to give the Linux Other group any
permission whatsoever even for my public shared group.
There is alot here that you will need to bone-up on but give it a try
and let us know if you run into any problems.
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 10:36 -0400, John Maher wrote:
John Maher john at chem.umass.edu
Fri Jun 3 09:37:14 MDT 2011
>> And, is /lab/chemgroup a local disk volume or a remote NSF volume?
>> a double mount SMB --> NFS --> Local Vol is not recommended owing to
>> way NFS itself handles permissions.
>Bob, I forgot to respond to this part. No, I'm not using NSF. That
>point is an LVM logical volume on a single RAID5 array.
>> Also I would recommend that you consider upgrading to the latest
>> branch of Samba and consider enabling ACLs and extended User
>> on the underlying volumes. Although adding Posix ACls does add
>> complexity to the mix in the end you get a more secure environment
>> less Windows-to-Linux permission problems and confusion.
>There's resistance in my department to install applications using
>rather than Ubuntu packages. For now, I need to stick with the version
>we have unless it becomes clear that the version change would make the
>I've been wondering about extended User Attributes and whether or not
>they are worth the effort. It sounds like you believe they are worth
>it. I'll look into it. Thanks.
More information about the samba