[ILUG] Filesystem ACLs versus permissions in smb.conf

[Bernhard D Rohrer]

On 10/12/10 14:48, Gareth Eason wrote:
> On 05/12/10 23:59, Bernhard D Rohrer wrote:
> [snip]
>> indeedy. I am just wondering why this mechanism is not more often used or even
>> the default. I find it much preferable to the concept of giving high access
>> permissions on the FS level and then restricting those in a config file. It
>> somewhat limits your choice of FS (I use JFS) if you have a server for more
>> than a few people, but I see no other downside.
> [snip]
>
> 	It might be that the downside is complexity - not in setting things up but in
> maintaining file permissions and ACLs accurately. Remember that as soon as a
> user is hindered due to file permissions, out comes the proverbial 'chmod
> 0777' hammer, without thought to security implications.

I actually am mostly using this mechanism because I don't want to incur 
permanent brain damage trying to juggle access control using onboard 
unix and samba mechanisms. This may admittedly be because I learned FS 
administration on Netware 1 ... 3 ;)
>
> 	In the case of SAMBA/CIFD/etc. I rather suspect that the creators and
> maintainers of the service tread the fine line between trying to emulate
> functionality supported by the protocol but allowing flexibility to use
> whatever filesystem you like at the back end. I personally appreciate being
> able to use an ext3 filesystem but serve it out via CIFS to those machines
> that don't want to support NFS.
>
I just use CIFS across the board. NFS and I never became friends. And 
with FS ACLs Samba is so much nicer ...

B