[Samba] Different permissions displayed in "security" tab and"advanced" tab

Linda Walsh samba at tlinx.org
Sat Jun 25 05:25:25 MDT 2011

Dale Schroeder wrote:
> On 06/24/2011 12:11 AM, Linda W wrote:
> David was trying to view and change permissions on a user that was 
> already listed on the security tab; he was not adding a user or group.
	I did this just now, changed it to full control for the one listed
user and group and 'Everyone'...  I then told it to propagate ....
it did, but visiting a sub folder doesn't have the 'propagated from parent'

	But the perms got changed with the exception of trying to delete
'Creator_owner and 'creator_group'...they see to not be deletable.

I haven't tested the full extent of changing 'creator-owner/group', but
the user and group that are listed as the creator owner&group is changeable.

> If yours looks like mine, the permissions of the user and group defined 
> as the posix owner and group are blanked out, and if  you try to mark 
> anything there, it will fail.
	They are not blanked out -- they say 'special' because they only 
apply to the current folder (and are not propagated).  Otherwise they say
'Full control' which is what the user has....but the user's perms can 
be set to 'full control' on the security and permisions page because you
can set the user and group id's to have Full control that is inheritable
on the subdirs and file.  But right now, unix doesn't support have the
'inherited from' information set....(because the acls are set on each item,
whereas on NT may files can share 1 access list.  Much like on linux,
already, multiple names can point to the same inode.

> Sometimes, there will be an error window popup; other times, the checked 

> Like you, I have the drive mounted with user_xattr and acl. 
	My mount options include no user_xattr or acl options  (they aren't
'options' in xfs but 'features', like unix permission bits - they don't
have to be specified to be turned on).

> This is a long standing difference between Samba and native MS, more of 
> an annoyance than a problem.
> I have read that Samba is working on full acl compatibility with MS, I 
> think in 3.6.  We'll have to wait and see if this corrects the differences.

I'm currently running 3.6, so maybe that explains some of the 
differences we are seeing...

More information about the samba mailing list