3

I am trying to set permissions on a Samba share mounted with vers=3.0, but it does not work (with vers=2.1 or vers=2.0 also issue is present).

As per SMB3-Linux cifsacl option is needed for setting the permission bits, but if that option is used the folder does not mount:

# mount -t cifs //server.lan/aaditya /home/roaming/SERVER/aaditya -o 'username=aaditya,domain=server.lan,password=mypass,cifsacl,vers=3.0,nobrl,mfsymlinks,sfu,uid=1274545246,gid=1274544641'

mount error(95): Operation not supported Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs)

Is there something that I am missing?

It works with vers=1.0 which has unix extensions but trying to avoid it as SMB 2.0+ seems to have much better performance and design (here and here).

Client details:

# mount.cifs -V
mount.cifs version: 6.4

# uname -srm
Linux 4.10.0-38-lowlatency x86_64

# lsb_release -ird
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description:    Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS
Release:    16.04

Server details:

$ uname -srm
Linux 4.4.0-97-generic x86_64

$ lsb_release -ird
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description:    Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS
Release:    16.04

$ samba --version
Version 4.6.7-Ubuntu
  • I dont know why mount.cifs fails with cifsacl; tried it on another system running Slackware where it worked. However, it fails to solve the main issue, ie, enabling unix permissions on a SMB 2.0 share. Anyhow I discovered why all the files were being shown as executable in the share: its due to mapping some windows file permissions as described in unix.stackexchange.com/questions/103415/…. Even if file_mode=0644 is explicitly added, the files become non executbable with no way of setting them otherwise. – aaditya1234 Nov 11 '17 at 19:06
2

Samba does not yet support UNIX extensions for SMB v2.0+. It is being worked on. [lists.samba.org, 10/2017]

They say that when UNIX extensions will be finalized, the Samba implementation is ”not going to allow clients to create ’real‘ symlinks on the server - only SMB-followable symlinks. Allowing clients to create real server symlinks as in SMB1 UNIX extensions has been a long-term security disaster.“ [same thread]

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.