On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:32:37AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > I've been stuggling with a strange bug in Samba which required me to
> > have some of the tdb files with permissions 0666 to allow Samba to
> > work.
> >
> > The Samba metadata (locking and connection tables etc) are placed on
> > GFS to allow for easier relocation of the Samba services ("poor man's
> > clustered samba").
> >
> > The problem is that Samba opens some files as root, then drops
> > priviledges and finally accesses these files assuming that the root
> > access rights are still in order. This does not work under GFS, but
> > under any other local fs.
> >
> > The Samba developers claim that this is POSIX compliant and that GFS
> > is not following POSIX in this matter.
> >
> > Is this true? Does POSIX require the fds to not change access
> > priviledges even when setuiding to another user?
>
> Yes, apparently it does.
>
> > If so, why doesn't GFS respect this? A bug or a feature? If the former
> > I'll go and bugzilla it. If the latter, can there be a fix for the
> > RHEL4 branch?
>
> Since GFS is not complying with POSIX, I'd call this a bug. Please, go
> bugzilla it.
OK, here it is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169039
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgphoYTz75v2j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
