Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Mar 2011 02:00 UTC
Mac OS X When you run smbd -V on your Snow Leopard installation, you'll see it's running SAMBA version 3.0.28a-apple. While I'm not sure how much difference the "-apple" makes, version 3.0.28a is old. Very old. In other words, it's riddled with bugs. Apple hasn't updated SAMBA in 3 years, and for Lion, they're dumping it altogether for something homegrown. The reason? SAMBA is now GPLv3.
Thread beginning with comment 468180
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: hmmm
by Laurence on Tue 29th Mar 2011 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: hmmm"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

SMB also doesn't support the file permissions on nearly all file systems used by linux and various unices...

Well that's not entirely true.
If you're running a SAMBA server and set the host filesystem to read only, then the SMB protocol can't overwrite that (as you would hope to expect). Same goes for owner permissions too. SAMBA also allows me to set the executable permission which isn't present for Windows filesystems.

In fact, SAMBA exposes all of the host filesystem's permissions from user and group to the RWXRWXRWX and special permissions (eg set UID).

Now I couldn't comment whether these permissions were visible in Windows (it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't as they're not native permissions for a Windows filesystem) nor if it native to SMB or whether it's a SAMBA hack, but none the less all the file and folder permissions are there on both my BSD and Linux SMB hosts when viewing with a Linux SAMBA client.

I'd be interested to know if this is just a *nix only SAMBA hack or if there is official support in SMB for other filesystem permissions - and if the latter, if Windows supports them or not (I'm guessing not?).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: hmmm
by oiaohm on Tue 29th Mar 2011 09:52 in reply to "RE[8]: hmmm"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

"SMB also doesn't support the file permissions on nearly all file systems used by linux and various unices...

Well that's not entirely true.
If you're running a SAMBA server and set the host filesystem to read only, then the SMB protocol can't overwrite that (as you would hope to expect). Same goes for owner permissions too. SAMBA also allows me to set the executable permission which isn't present for Windows filesystems.

In fact, SAMBA exposes all of the host filesystem's permissions from user and group to the RWXRWXRWX and special permissions (eg set UID).

Now I couldn't comment whether these permissions were visible in Windows (it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't as they're not native permissions for a Windows filesystem) nor if it native to SMB or whether it's a SAMBA hack, but none the less all the file and folder permissions are there on both my BSD and Linux SMB hosts when viewing with a Linux SAMBA client.

I'd be interested to know if this is just a *nix only SAMBA hack or if there is official support in SMB for other filesystem permissions - and if the latter, if Windows supports them or not (I'm guessing not?).
"

Windows with services for Unix display posix permissions under SMB1. http://www.unixsmb2.org/ The SMB2 full Posix permission support is not written yet.

But once it is as per normal there will be a update for Windows to support it.

Basically MS writes the side of SMB protocal for their file-systems. Unix groups write the SMB protocal for Posix platforms.

This is the big problem of thinking SMB is MS only. Its a joint written protocol. Always has been.

Problem comes about is that a lot of applications for windows are built to presume the file-system on the other end is NTFS. So don't use the extra features built into to windows to support posix file systems and other file system types properly.

From an operational point of view SMB2 is not complete yet. But of course MS will want to deploy it so creating lockouts.

Basically if you read just the MS documents for SMB protocols you miss the Unix addons that MS does support. Since MS does not write those.

Yes so a SMB protocol based off MS documents alone is incomplete. Always you have to refer to samba collected documents on the subject if implementing SMB to implement it correctly.

Reply Parent Score: 3