|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > samba-users archives|
On Tuesday 10 August 2010 20:26:24 Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:15:35AM -0400, John Mulligan wrote:
> > Hello List,
> > I've run into an interesting situation and am wondering if this is by
> > design or just an interesting side effect: using both acl_xattr and
> > a user in the "admin users" list at the same time seem to conflict.
> > I have a tool that is running on a windows box that needs full access
> > to files on a given share while ignore individual file and folder
> > permissions. We were able to make that tool run as an
> > "admin user" in smb.conf.
> > When I run the tool with the vfs xattr_acl module turned on (for best
> > compatibility with nt acls), the tests fail but when using only straight
> > POSIX acls the test works. Running things manually, it appears that
> > running with only POSIX acls the root user on the samba side is able to
> > read/write any file as expected, but with acl_xattr turned on samba is
> > doing some internal checking of the xattr acls and blocking access to
> > the files.
> > So my question is, is this by design or is this something that the
> > samba team would consider as a bug/feature request?
> > Also feel free to tell me "you're doing it wrong" if there is a better
> > way to provide read/write access to the windows side regardless of
> > the acls on the files. None of my searches turned up anything relevant,
> > but its always possible that I was looking in the wrong direction.
> Ok, is this with 3.5.x ?
> If so, it's a bug - one that has been fixed in the 3.6.0 code
> tree. The function smb1_file_se_access_check() in 3.5.x is
> directly called from the acl_xattr module, and this code doesn't
> taker into account the admin_user status of the calling user.
> In 3.6.0 and above, the admin_user status check has been moved
> directly into the smb1_file_se_access_check() function so that
> it's consistent will all calls for access checking.
> Let me know if you want this fix back-porting to 3.5.x, if
> so, log a bug at bugzilla.samba.org and I'll create the
> patch (it's a reasonably simple fix).
Yes it is, and a backport to 3.5.x would be greatly appreciated. I had opened
a bug earlier when you first replied to my email, which I must have failed to
reply back to. Sorry for any confusion. The bug is located here:
Thanks again for the assistance.
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba