I hadn't realized that I *must* set an ACL on a folder if I want Windows to behave properly.
If I set permissions for a folder as "chmod 755" with no ACL, and add files via CIFS, then new files created from Windows come out as "000+" with an ACL giving the owner full control, and specifying a numbered group (2147483648) that doesn't seem to make sense to either Windows or UNIX. (The group behavior looks buggy to me - I'm using snv101b, in case there are any changes in later builds.) On the other hand, if I create an ACL for the folder before adding the file, then things work as I expect. I guess I simply expect a 755 folder to allow files I write there to be read by others, or I at least want a setting in CIFS to determine the default ACL. In this case, even if the group mapping is bad, I think "everyone" should have read access to this file. In effect, I expect a better mapping of UNIX permissions to Windows, and I think CIFS should work in a mixed environment. It seems like the "no ACL" mode (with a mixture of no-ACL and ACL permissions) is very hard to understand. Once all my directories have an ACL, some of my problems with read-only files seem to be less of an issue - the read-only bugs I'm seeing are with pure "no ACL" standard UNIX permissions, and how they're inherited. But I will again say that upgrading from an existing system (perhaps via tar) would appear to confuse a bunch of people. Is there a simple fix for this, like maybe enabling directory-level ACLs (or throwing a warning) when sharesmb is enabled? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ cifs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-discuss
