Orvar Korvar wrote:
:o)
Now Im a bit confused. You write here that 744 should suffice for my needs even
with CIFS, but one post below you write that 744 doesnt suffice with CIFS:
"This works for local/NFS access but it might not work quite perfectly
for CIFS access since Unix '7' does not translate to Windows
'full-control'. Also '4' might not exactly map to Windows 'Read'"
This is a general statement. When you explained your use case then I
said 744 should be good enough for your situation.
If I look at the timestamp it seems that "744 should suffice" is newest, and
that statement is the one that is valid?
PS.
Regarding 744, it sets everything to
rwx r-- r--
But if I want others to be able to search in directories, I must set the "x"
bit also? Is this correct? Like:
rwx r-x r-x
So the files must be "rwx r-- r--" and the directories "rwx r-x r-x"
So I must treat the directories separately from the files?
That's correct.
PSS. One last question, you wrote that only using 744 could mess CIFS up, because "4
might not map to Windows Read". If I wanted to use ACL, which ACE permissions should
I use instead?
I double checked the permission mapping and 4 actually should give you
all the read perms you need.
Afshin
PSSS. FATMAN, great you solved your problem! If you have time, maybe you could recap the problem and the
solution, briefly at the end? I always do that when I have a question. A recap is good for future use. In fact,
it should be publicly announced that "when you started a thread, conclude the problem and a solution with a
brief recap at the very end". I personally hate when someone asks a question and writes "solved it,
thanks". It annoys me. How did he solve it? I want a brief recap of the problem and the solution at the end,
like an "abstract". Then I can read the whole thread and learn the details. Future database with
Q&A. Dont you like this suggestion?
_______________________________________________
cifs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-discuss
