[Samba] permissions, and maybe a violation of the least surprise principle

Tue Nov 9 14:01:24 UTC 2021


Am 09.11.2021 um 13:30 schrieb Patrick Goetz via samba:
>
>
> On 11/8/21 11:14, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:38:18AM -0600, Patrick Goetz via samba wrote:
>>> I'm down to the last step of my current re-implementation of Samba, namely getting the permissions to work right.
>>>
>>> Here is the share section (+ some general) from my smb.conf file:
>>>
>>>
>>>   winbind refresh tickets = Yes
>>>   vfs objects = acl_xattr
>>>
>>> [share]
>>>   comment = Share Directory
>>>   path = /data/share
>>>   guest ok = no
>>>   browseable = yes
>>>   writeable = yes
>>>   create mask = 0770
>>>   directory mask = 0770
>>>   # inherit permissions = yes
>>>   follow symlinks = yes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the filesystem permissions on the directory:
>>>
>>> root at data2:/data# ls -ld share
>>> drwxrws---+ 3 root ea-staff 4096 Nov  6 16:31 share
>>>
>>> root at data2:/data# getfacl share
>>> # file: share
>>> # owner: root
>>> # group: ea-staff
>>> # flags: -s-
>>> user::rwx
>>> group::rwx
>>> other::---
>>> default:user::rwx
>>> default:group::rwx
>>> default:group:ea-staff:rwx
>>> default:mask::rwx
>>> default:other::---
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice that the setgid bit is set, with group = (security group) ea-staff
>>>
>>> So, I login on a Windows machine as a member of the ea-staff group, and save a document to the share:
>>>
>>> root at data2:/data/share# ls -l top*
>>> -rwxrwx---+ 1 dhales domain users 227 Nov  8 09:12 top-secret_document_only_staff_should_see.rtf
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice that the setgid bit on the parent folder was ignored, and the primary group assignment to the file is Domain Users.  Worse, anyone in Domain Users has access to write this file, although I
>>> suppose the lack of other  "x" permission on the parent folder might prevent access.
>>>
>>> I think I read that if you are using Windows ACLs, then the Windows ACLs are checked and honored first; however this seems like a violation of the least surprise principle, since I'm getting user
>>> rights  elevations (namely Domain Users read/write access) that I don't want.
>>>
>>> These Wiki pages talk about using POSIX and Windows ACLs respectively:
>>>
>>>  https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_a_Share_Using_POSIX_ACLs
>>>  https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_a_Share_Using_Windows_ACLs
>>>
>>> but I can't figure out how to tell the system I would prefer to base ACLs on POSIX rather than Windows ACLs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, for the "it gets worse" category.  There is an awful lot of misinformation about configuring a Home share, perhaps because the Windows people seem to see this as something you use for backup
>>> only. The Home folder Wiki page also suggests that you can use GPO drive mapping for this rather than setting it in the user's Profile. Looking online I see Windows admins stating that one should
>>> *not* use GPO file sharing to configure the home directory and that only the user's Profile tab should be used for this.  In any case, Folder Redirection does not appear to work unless you set up
>>> a home directory under Profile.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, using /home for this purpose appears to work fine and means the user will have immediate access to all their files when they ssh into the linux fileserver.  However:
>>>
>>> [home]
>>>   comment = Home Directories
>>>   path = /data/home
>>>   guest ok = no
>>>   browseable = no
>>>   writeable = yes
>>>   create mask = 0700
>>>   directory mask = 0700
>>>   follow symlinks = yes
>>>
>>> root at data2:/data# ls -ld home
>>> drwxr-xr-x+ 8 root root 4096 Nov  6 08:27 home
>>> root at data2:/data# getfacl home
>>> # file: home
>>> # owner: root
>>> # group: root
>>> user::rwx
>>> group::r-x
>>> group:domain\040admins:rwx    #effective:r-x
>>> mask::r-x
>>> other::r-x
>>>
>>>
>>> /home is a bind mount to /data/home
>>>
>>>
>>> The same user logs in on a W10 client and saves a file to his Documents folder:
>>>
>>> root at data2:~# cd /home/dhales/Documents/
>>> root at data2:/home/dhales/Documents# ls -l my*
>>> -rwxrwx---+ 1 dhales domain users 222 Nov  8 09:25 my-super-secret-file.rtf
>>>
>>>
>>> So looks like the create mask is being ignored as well?
>>>
>>> I spend a lot of time adjusting permissions for users.  Most of them can't figure out how to do this themselves, and letting a user loose in the Windows ACL zoo seems like a recipe for disaster
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Consequently I'd prefer to manage POSIX ACLs via the filesystem and ssh and then have the Windows ACL's approximated from that. Is there a way to do this?
>>>
>>> It also seems to me that the filesystem permissions should *never* be bypassed under any circumstances.
>>>
>>> Final question if anyone in the know has read this far. By default the Windows ACLs are stored in a TDB database on the fileserver's filesystem?
>>
>> No, that's not true. The Windows ACLs are stored by default
>> in EA's attached to the file.
>>
>>> What happens to these permissions if I migrate the data (say, via rsync) to another server? Seems like all the Windows ACLs will be lost unless I transfer the relevant database as well.
>>
>> So long as rsync transfers EA's then all will work.
>
>
>
> That's kind of the question, I guess. For ext4 the xattrs are stored in a separate data block referenced from inodes via inode.i_file_acl*
> https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Disk_Layout#Extended_Attributes
>
> I suppose rsync could/would be smart enough to follow this pointer to the xattrs.
>
> This got me interested, so I'm running some tests.  For starters, if you `scp -p` files from an XFS filesystem to ext4, POSIX ALC's are not preserved:
>
>
> root at kraken:/EM/21sep30a# getfacl 20210930_YD04_68_004_0.0_14.08.45.eer
> # file: 20210930_YD04_68_004_0.0_14.08.45.eer
> # owner: jonesimages
> # group: jonesimages
> user::rwx
> user:abril:r-x
> user:jones:rwx
> user:cryosparc_user:r-x
> user:afb938:r-x
> group::r-x
> group:cns-joneslabusers:r-x
> mask::rwx
> other::---
>
>
> root at kraken:/EM/21sep30a# scp -p  20210930_YD04_68_004_0.0_14.08.45.eer pgoetz at frog.my-domain.com:/home/pgoetz/temp
>
> [pgoetz at frog temp]$ getfacl 20210930_YD04_68_004_0.0_14.08.45.eer
> # file: 20210930_YD04_68_004_0.0_14.08.45.eer
> # owner: pgoetz
> # group: pgoetz
> user::rwx
> group::rwx
> other::---
>
>
> Looks like rsync'ing from XFS to ZFS doesn't preserve POSIX extended ACLs, either. Damn.  I need to find an ext4 system I'm using POSIX ACLs on; maybe ext4 performs better in this regard.
>
> Has anyone tested to see if copying files from ext4 to ext4 preserves POSIX extended ACLs? Under some conditions (say same UID's on each system)?
>
> If I have to restore a 1PB filesystem from backup and need to reconstruct all the ACLs by hand it's going to be a sad, sad day.  Week, I meant; possibly month. Actually infinite, since I'll probably
> quit and will open a bakery instead. Bread doesn't have ACLs.
>
For sysvol replication i use rsync with rsyncd (no ssh involved) on ext4 without problems since a few years. Also works with zfs in the mix.
If you have already transfered the files you may use robocopy on a windows client to mirror/update only the permissions.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/storage-at-microsoft/robocopy-mir-switch-8211-mirroring-file-permissions/ba-p/423662