0

Before I begin I should note that what I'm asking for was working perfectly with the "vers=1.0" flag added to mount.cifs. But after an OS upgrade on the server, which upgraded samba to Version 4.13.17-Ubuntu, this is apparently no longer supported.

Also note that there is NO Windows involved in this - I am only dealing with linux user, group and permission information.

I have an Ubuntu 20.04 server running smbd and sharing a /data volume, and an Ubuntu 20.04 client mounting that share with mount.cifs. On the client, ls -l shows everything owned by root/root:

# mount.cifs //server/data /data -o username=username,password=password # ls -l /data total 0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 29 14:07 directory-a drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Feb 13 16:43 directory-b drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 May 17 2012 etc drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Apr 21 2014 lost+found drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Feb 13 16:43 shared

What I want is to get the client side to see the same users, groups and permissions that are on the server, for example:

server# ls -l /data total 0 drwxr-xr-x 2 fred fred 4096 Mar 29 14:07 directory-a drwxr-xr-x 2 barney barney 4096 Feb 13 16:43 directory-b drwxr-xr-x 2 wilma wilma 4096 May 17 2012 etc drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Apr 21 2014 lost+found drwxrwxr-x 2 fred users 4096 Feb 13 16:43 shared

All user and group accounts exist and have identical UIDs and GUIs on both systems (as I said above, this all worked fine before). Here is the old fstab entry that was used on the client before the server upgrade:

//server/data /data cifs _netdev,username=username,password=password,noexec,noacl,vers=1.0 0 0

This now gives an error:

# mount /data mount error(95): Operation not supported Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs) and kernel log messages (dmesg)

and removing the "vers=1.0" flag fixes this error but has the result seen above (loss of all user/group/perm info).

smb.conf on the server contains:

[global] workgroup = WORKGROUP server string = Server log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m max log size = 1000 logging = file panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d server role = standalone server passdb backend = smbpasswd obey pam restrictions = no unix password sync = no pam password change = no map to guest = Never # defaults for shares guest ok = no create mask = 0775 directory mask = 0775 case sensitive = yes map archive = no [data] comment = Data path = /data writeable = no browseable = yes write list = fred

The Question

Is there any way to get the old vers=1.0 behavoir with the newer version of Samba? Thanks!

Improve this question
4
  • What I don't understand: If you have a UNIX/Linux environment only, why are you using CIFS and not NFS? Commented Apr 5, 2022 at 9:32
  • I tried NFS years ago and can't rememeber if there were other problems, but the main thing is that it hangs the client machine if the file server is down. On my desktop this is pretty rare, but the other wrinkle is laptops. Is it possible to make NFS play nice with servers that are not always available? Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 13:27
  • Try searching for "NFS soft mount" (also man 5 nfs). Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 13:35
  • @U.Windl - thanks for the tips! I do want to give NFS another try so I'll take your advice when I have some time Commented Apr 7, 2022 at 14:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Well I finally found it. Adding this to smb.conf allows the vers=1.0 option to be used again:

server min protocol = NT1

I found it in an obscure bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1883234

Unix extensions only work for the SMB1 protocol, which has been deprecated and is no longer used by default. Development is ongoing to support them in SMB3.

You can re-enable SMB1 by adding this to [global] in the server's smb.conf:

server min protocol = NT1

Can you please try again with the above setting and report back?

Also there is a new side effect when listing directories, an extra + (plus sign) in the permissions field that was not there with the previous version. It looks like this:

# ls -l /data total 0 drwxr-xr-x+ 2 fred fred 4096 Mar 29 14:07 directory-a drwxr-xr-x+ 2 barney barney 4096 Feb 13 16:43 directory-b drwxr-xr-x+ 2 wilma wilma 4096 May 17 2012 etc drwx------ 2 root root 16384 Apr 21 2014 lost+found drwxrwxr-x+ 2 fred users 4096 Feb 13 16:43 shared

I can't find any documentation about it but it seems to correspond to files & dirs that I have write permissions to.

Improve this answer
1
  • Agreed, the documentation is poor (I couldn't find it), but the magic word is "ACLs". Commented Apr 6, 2022 at 13:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.