No, please understand: when the mounting occurs, samba TOTAL ignores the 
permissions on the mnt point, and resets them to what  it pleases (right 
now its root root 755 I think)
So it wouldn't even matter if it was world read/writable, samba woul still 
change the permissions without asking.

However, at the moment this is a different topic, which I belive I can 
solve by reading the docs. The problem now, is that users cannot mount and 
smb share (what it gets mounted as is irrelevant for now). The reason for 
this is that mount -t smb actually calls "smbmount", which users apparently 
are not allowe dto do, as witnessed by the famous error "smbmount must be 
installed setuid root" chmoding smbmnt to +s does NOT help, I"ve tried it 
on SuSE, Red hat and mandrake. If you do that anyway, you get (at least on 
red hat) this error:

         [jw@garnet jw]$ mount /mnt/Cschomeserver/
         cannot mount on /mnt/Cschomeserver: Operation not permitted
         smbmnt failed: 1
         mount.smbfs: ioctl failed, res=-1
         Could not umount /mnt/Cschomeserver: Operation not permitted


this is after I've set the perms on /usr/bin/smbmnt to:

         -rwsr-sr-x    1 root     root       251728 May 17 14:47 
/usr/bin/smbmnt

Arg. I wish samba's web site wasn't in the middle of the moving mess, for 
more then a month I can't use there search engine there because "[they're] 
in the process of moving"

Also, please don't tell me to RTFM - I can promise I've read more then most 
of you: 2 whole books and all the appropriate man-info-/usr/doc 
pages-readme's-etc. The mount man pages gives VERY LITTLE  detail about smb 
mounts. There's a general section for network - mount points, but the info 
there is very sparse.

Thanks for trying though, we'll get there a little bit at a time :-)

                 JW


At 10:46 AM 9/8/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000, Barton Hodges wrote:
> > I don't have an example, but I found that I had to
> > make the mount directory be owned by the user that wants to mount.
> >
>Or perhaps, just making the directory owned by a GROUP that the user
>is a member of would be enough? Especially if you made the directory
>rwx for the GROUP.
>         John
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Redhat-list mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list



_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Reply via email to