[Samba] Samba Permissions vs Linux Permissions
techweb at ntlworld.com
Sat Nov 26 10:52:31 MST 2011
My testing has shown this also. The SMB protocol / operation is independent
of the Linux permissions.
Here is the analogy I have used to explain it to somebody else:
Think of 3 office blocks (these represent shares). Each office block has 3
floors (represent folders). Each floor has 3 offices (represent files)
If I don't have the key to an office block (permission granted by samba)
then even if I have keys to every floor and office in the building (777
Linux permissions), I can't go beyond the front door.
From: Greg Byshenk [mailto:samba at byshenk.net]
Sent: 26 November 2011 17:44
To: Stephen Elliott
Cc: samba at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba Permissions vs Linux Permissions
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 04:46:02PM -0000, Stephen Elliott wrote:
> I understand that Linux permissions override Samba permissions. But is
> it also the case that the Samba permissions override the Linux
> I have a samba share called "SHARE". This is disabled by default and
> is configured for write access by group "MY_GROUP".
> The permissions of all files and folders within /c/SHARE are 777
> Now, if a user called "David" belonging to group "users" tried to
> access "\\READYNAS\SHARE\document.doc" would they have permission? I
> believe not but am looking for confirmation?
> My testing and understanding, leads me to the conclusion that both
> Samba and Linux permissions override each other. The most restrictive
> set win. Am I correct?
Your understanding is basically correct.
That said, "override each other", is not really correct, though your second
summary is close to the truth. That is, Samba permissions may be more
restrictive than filesystem (Linux or otherwise) permissions, but may not be
more open; in the end the filesystem is the master.
greg byshenk - gbyshenk at byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
More information about the samba