Richard: Please define "an appropriate ACL on the file".
Yes, it could have significant impact. Is there are problem with the current way it's set (RO == owner "r" mode)? Ken ________________________________ Ken Cross Network Storage Solutions Phone 865.675.4070 ext 31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > amba.org] On Behalf Of Richard Sharpe > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 5:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Problems with the lack of a real RO bit with Samba ... > > > Hi, > > I am currently engaged in a debate about the desirability of > implementing > a real RO bit in our file system (we already have HIDDEN, SYSTEM, and > ARCHIVE bits). The problem with RO is that it requires some real > semantics, and you have to worry about UNIX semantics when files are > shared between Windows and UNIX. > > The current proposal is to do something like what Samba does, > synthesize > the RO bit with ACLs on the file/object. > > Now, Windows has a RO bit and ACLS, and you can have ACLs on > the file that > give everyone WRITE access, while the RO bit gives no one > WRITE access. > > My question is, is anyone aware of any real application that would be > confused if the RO bit were synthesized by setting an > appropriate ACL on > the file? > > I am aware that this could mean that if an inappropriate ACL > were added to > the file, perhaps by mistake (when setting ACLs on all files > in a tree), > the RO bit could disappear. > > Regards > ----- > Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, > sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com >
