Linux - ServerThis forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
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.
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.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Is there any possible way to use the veto-files option in Samba to cause Samba to inhibit access to a specific absolute directory path?
The command as documented is more or less used as a pattern march against what I'm assuming is the last part of the directory. Like for example it'll say "veto-files = /readme/" will block all files named "readme".
I on the other hand want to restrict access to a specific directory on a specific share.
Let's say I have two shares: public and private. They are both sharing the same path, and both are using the "force user" option. (because I have a few different windows usernames and don't want to mess with Linux filesystem permissions/groups/etc.) However, on the public share I want a specific absolute path (or two) to be invisible to the user accessing the share and not writable or even accessible. So for example: "/mnt/share/Projects/PrivateFiles" should not be visible or accessible anyone using the Public share, but should be fully visible and writable to anyone using the Private share. However, if someone were to, on the Public share, create say /mnt/share/MyStuff/PrivateFiles I don't want that restricted at all. (This is why I want absolute paths.)
Aside from messing with directory permissions, umasks, all that jazz, is there a simple way to accomplish this?
Here's another example of why I might want to do this. Suppose I have the folder /mnt/share/mac which is being shared as a separate share for Mac systems. I also want Macs to have read/write access to the /mnt/share share but not to be able to spew their .DS_Store and all that stuff all over the place. veto-files lets me restrict this on the share hosting /mnt/share but it in turn makes any of those files invisible inside the /mnt/share/mac folder on that same share. In other words, on /mnt/share I want only the absolute paths (e.g. /mnt/share/.DS_Store and /mnt/share/.Trashes) to be blocked; I still want access to say /mnt/share/mac/.DS_Store.