On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 14:37, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> This code on line 203 of smbd/posix_acls.c maps the unix execute
> permission to the windows execute.
>
> if (mode & S_IXUSR) {
> if (conn->vfs_ops.sys_acl_add_perm(conn, *p_permset, SMB_ACL_EXECUTE)
> == -1)
> return -1;
> }
>
> This would not normally be a problem - we completely ignore this when
> clients attempt to execute files located on an SMB share. However, this
> ACL is downloaded with user profiles, and this means that a PIF on a
> user's start menu cannot be executed (this is a mandatory profile, the
> user has read/write perms, but doesn't own it).
>
> Considering that we also use that bit for 'map archive', should we
> really be using it for execute too? It also seems odd for windows .exes
> to need exe status under unix...
>
> I would propose that execute permissions (windows site) be put with
> 'normal' reads.
>
> What do people think?
>
> In the meantime I'll just set the exe bit - or actually, I'm going to
> write a VFS module that will set the bit for me ;-)Adding a complication - you would still need the exe permission to apply for directories, because windows and unix have the same meaning for at least that part of the system. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
