[Samba] SeDiskOperatorPrivilege and username map...

[Marco Gaiarin]

Mandi! Luis Peromarta via samba
  In chel di` si favelave...

>> I think that mapping Admnistrator to root is still a good idea and does not
>> harm, but... it is still needed?
> Yes in order to interact with the “share permissions” tab of the share, when configuring from “Computer manager”. (Not security tab)
> I think this is the only time when it’s needed, this was discovered not too long ago, trough a thread in the list. See:

This make no sense to me.


The only need to map Administrator (UID <BASE> + 512) to root (UID 0)
explicitlye directly it to be able as *user* administrator to do something
that need explicitly UNIX root permission on something on the unix side.


My understanding of this mapping is something like:

 « the superuser on UNIX is root/UID=0, the superuser on windows is
   Administrator but on UNIX have UID=<BASE>+512; to have Administrator be
   suepruser on windows *and* UNIX i map one to the other. »


But 'share permission' seems to me a 'pure samba' things, probably they are
saved on some '.TDB' file somewhere... so why it is needed uid=0?


Right?

--