Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game. |
| Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
07-24-2004, 10:35 PM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: M'sia, Aus, Chn
Distribution: Redhat Linux 8 & 9, Fedora Core 2, XP
Posts: 301
Rep:
|
"rwx" and "valid users" - which one has precedence?
Howdy~
Here is the situation, let say i have Dept. A and Dept. B, both are mutually exclusive.
I have 2 share directories (share-A and share-B) for each Dept. and users from grp-A should not have access to share-B and vice versa, but my boss wants access to both of the shares...
Here is what i did, might be a bit silly cos i'm kinda new to Linux
Code:
dwrxwrx--- root root ... share-A
dwrxwrx--- root root ... share-B
In my smb.conf:
Code:
[share-A]
path = /home/share-A
valid users = @grp-A boss@admin
read only = no
[share-B]
path = /home/share-B
valid users = @grp-B boss@admin
read only = no
My boss logs in and he cannot enter any of the shares... thats obvious since others is set to ---, but if i set others to r-x, grp-A can access grp-B~
Is there an more simple workaround?
Thanks in advance~ 
|
|
|
|
07-24-2004, 11:07 PM
|
#2
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Distribution: Slackware & Arch
Posts: 825
Rep:
|
for your valid users list you need to be sure all of the group-a and group-b users are setup in their own actual group. Also, be sure to adduser for your boss and also smbpasswd -a boss to set his samba password up.
valid users = @groupa boss
and
valid users = @groupb boss
|
|
|
|
07-25-2004, 01:37 AM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: M'sia, Aus, Chn
Distribution: Redhat Linux 8 & 9, Fedora Core 2, XP
Posts: 301
Original Poster
Rep:
|
I think thats what i did...
What about the share directory's access permission and ownership?
Like i said, my boss cannot enter either directory because he belongs to a different group...
I set both shares to 770... my boss belongs to the admin group, which means *others*, if *others* is 0, does the *valid users* still work?
|
|
|
|
07-25-2004, 01:04 PM
|
#4
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Distribution: Slackware & Arch
Posts: 825
Rep:
|
Can you just add your boss to a second group (and maybe a third) so that he can access the stuff as a group member? Otherwise the Linux permissions will win I think. Try looking into making 'boss' a member of a couple groups.
|
|
|
|
07-25-2004, 10:13 PM
|
#5
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: M'sia, Aus, Chn
Distribution: Redhat Linux 8 & 9, Fedora Core 2, XP
Posts: 301
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Yup, I think i get what you mean... hmm... your workaround might be safer than mine 
I set the shares to 775 and it works but it will get messy a bit when i have more folders...
Anyway, thanks for your idea~!
~WiLL~
|
|
|
|
07-26-2004, 09:49 AM
|
#6
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Distribution: Slackware & Arch
Posts: 825
Rep:
|
Yeah, I definitely recommend going with my approach just to preserve the security of those files.
|
|
|
|
07-27-2004, 07:25 AM
|
#7
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: M'sia, Aus, Chn
Distribution: Redhat Linux 8 & 9, Fedora Core 2, XP
Posts: 301
Original Poster
Rep:
|
Working~
CHeeRs~! 
|
|
|
|
07-27-2004, 09:50 AM
|
#8
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Distribution: Slackware & Arch
Posts: 825
Rep:
|
Cool! Glad I could help you!
|
|
|
|
07-27-2004, 10:21 AM
|
#9
|
|
Member
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: M'sia, Aus, Chn
Distribution: Redhat Linux 8 & 9, Fedora Core 2, XP
Posts: 301
Original Poster
Rep:
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|