MacOS/Samba not playing nice

[Greg Rundlett (freephile)]

And another reason to go with the 'force directory mode' setting on the
server is that some applications (like Fetch) are user-configurable so
users can be just smart enough to screw up file permissions after you've
explained (repeatedly) how the app needs to be configured.  And those are
the same kind of users who think it's your fault that the system doesn't
work.

Greg Rundlett


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Mark Komarinski <mkomarinski at wayga.org>wrote:

> Resist the temptation to go mixed mode NFS/CIFS for your shares.  Go all
> one path as the permissions almost never map properly.  I'd start with
> what Ben recommended and look at the 'force directory mode' setting on
> the server first.  Making changes there will be a lot easier than
> changing every OS X box, and changing it every time a new system shows up.
>
> If that doesn't work, go NFS, but do it on the Windows systems as well.
>
> -Mark
>
> On 7/3/2013 9:27 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> > Another approach would be to use NFS for MacOSX and see how that
> > works.  NFS is more native to Linux & Macintosh than CIFS.
> >
> > It might not be easier and I like Ben's approach of forcing
> > permissions a bit better.
> >
> > FWIW, I've converted a number of Windows 7 systems to using NFS
> > instead of CIFS to do away with a Samba server.  Like you, I want 777
> > permissions on those shares.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com
> > <mailto:dragonhawk at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Robert Pruyne <rpruyne at rpc-nh.org
> >     <mailto:rpruyne at rpc-nh.org>> wrote:
> >     > I have a Samba server running on it to serve files on our network.
> >     > When our only Mac OS user logs in, and tries to make a new
> >     directory on
> >     > the Samba server, it creates it with permissions of 0700, and
> >     the user is the
> >     > owner, effectively disallowing any other user from using the
> >     directory.
> >
> >       My guess is that Mac OS X, being a Unix-like OS under the covers,
> >     supports the SMB extensions that allow it to specify Unix-style file
> >     permissions.  Those are thus getting passed from the Mac OS X client
> >     to the Samba server, and Samba dutifully sets the permissions it was
> >     given.
> >
> >       Assuming that is correct, there are two approaches here: One is to
> >     adjust the client to do what you want.  In theory, this is the more
> >     "elegant" approach.  The other approach would be to configure Samba
> to
> >     ignore whatever the client is telling it, and just set permissions
> >     from the Samba config file.  That should work, but it's kind of
> >     brutish, and if you ever want to apply other permissions, you'd need
> >     to revisit.
> >
> >       I don't know much of anything about Mac OS X, but this seems like
> it
> >     might be applicable to adjust the client:
> >
> >     http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2202
> >
> >     (found with: http://www.google.com/search?q=mac+os+x+umask )
> >
> >       To instead just clobber whatever other permissions might have
> >     evolved and apply the same thing everywhere, use the "force create
> >     mode" and "force directory mode" directives in your Samba config
> file.
> >
> >     -- Ben
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> >     gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org <mailto:
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
> >     http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> > gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20130703/5b411a11/attachment-0001.html