|
Home > Archive > Red Hat Topics > September 2004 > Samba File Permissions Weirdness
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Samba File Permissions Weirdness
|
|
| R P Mckay 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| ***NOTE: I'm not sure what's going on - I tried three times to post
this message to linux.samba and it doesn't show up... no doubt there's
a doorkeeper that won't let me in without an invitation, but I haven't
found how to do it yet... so I thought I'd try here... if you can help
with either problem (the one below or posting to linuix.samba) I'd
surely appreciate it!
Server: Samba 2.2.7a on RH 9.0
Client1: W98
Client2: RH9.0
Both clients mount same share with same user logon.
Both clients copy the same file from /source directory to /target
directory,
Client1 names the new file "fromw98.dat" and Client2 names it
"fromrh9.dat".
fromw98.dat shows -rwxrw-rw-
fromrh9.dat shows -rw-r--r--
Users on WAN can open fromw98.dat for RW, but not fromrh9.dat ...
Obviously there's a permission screwup somewhere, but I haven't been
able to find it.
What's going on here?
| |
| Scott Lurndal 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| R P Mckay <morerpmsarebetter@yohoho.com> writes:
>Client1 names the new file "fromw98.dat" and Client2 names it
>"fromrh9.dat".
>
>fromw98.dat shows -rwxrw-rw-
>fromrh9.dat shows -rw-r--r--
>
>Users on WAN can open fromw98.dat for RW, but not fromrh9.dat ...
>
>Obviously there's a permission screwup somewhere, but I haven't been
>able to find it.
man umask
man chmod
scott
| |
| R P Mckay 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| >R P Mckay <morerpmsarebetter@yohoho.com> writes:
>
>
>man umask
No help. It's the SAME USER in both cases - unless samba is somehow
distinguishing between william logging in from Client1 and william
logging in from Client2...
>man chmod
No help. The files need to be created with the proper permissions, not
changed afterward.
Thanks, anyway.
| |
| Ivan Marsh 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:21:37 -0500, R P Mckay wrote:
>
> No help. It's the SAME USER in both cases - unless samba is somehow
> distinguishing between william logging in from Client1 and william logging
> in from Client2...
>
>
> No help. The files need to be created with the proper permissions, not
> changed afterward.
>
> Thanks, anyway.
create mask =
directory mask =
in smb.conf
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
| |
| R P Mckay 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| >On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:21:37 -0500, R P Mckay wrote:
>
>
>create mask =
>directory mask =
>
>in smb.conf
For the share in question, both are set to 0777
| |
| R P Mckay 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:21:37 -0500, R P Mckay wrote:
>
A previous poster snipped out something that might be meaningful
here...
"Both clients mount same share with same user logon."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Both clients copy the same file from /source directory to /target
directory,"
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>create mask =
>directory mask =
>
>in smb.conf
The share in question has 0777 for both masks.
| |
| Scott Lurndal 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| R P Mckay <morerpmsarebetter@yohoho.com> writes:
>
>No help. It's the SAME USER in both cases - unless samba is somehow
>distinguishing between william logging in from Client1 and william
>logging in from Client2...
But client1 is windows, client 2 is RH, right? The default umask
on redhat will remove write access for group and other. This sure
looks like what is happening.
scott
>
>
>No help. The files need to be created with the proper permissions, not
>changed afterward.
>
>Thanks, anyway.
>
| |
| R P Mckay 2004-09-15, 11:11 am |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>R P Mckay <morerpmsarebetter@yohoho.com> writes:
>
>But client1 is windows, client 2 is RH, right? The default umask
>on redhat will remove write access for group and other. This sure
>looks like what is happening.
>
>scott
>
Aha! Could be - I'll check it out - I was looking strictly at the
server, it didn't occur to me that the client might be at fault!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|