trying to use mount.cifs //192.168.1.22/marek /home/marek/smb -o username=marek asks my password nicely and it does it oky.. and works also.. BUT. it shows owner and group in numbers (id) [root@localhost marek]# ls -la |grep samba drwxrwxrwx 2 1004 1005 0 nov 21 14:53 samba/ [root@localhost marek]# something like this... not sure if this is a bug or what... i thought i post it:)
if my the servers and pcs uid fall together then its oky.. and samba resolves it nicely.. but if they are diffrent, then we have problem and it doesent do what it should do.. and mount it and but group and owner right names not numbers..
trying to use mount.cifs //192.168.1.22/marek /home/marek/smb -o username=marek asks my password nicely and it does it oky.. and works also.. BUT. it shows owner and group in numbers (id) [root@localhost marek]# ls -la |grep samba drwxrwxrwx 2 1004 1005 0 nov 21 14:53 samba/ [root@localhost marek]# something like this... not sure if this is a bug or what... i thought i post it:) if my the servers and pcs uid fall together then its oky.. and samba resolves it nicely.. but if they are diffrent, then we have problem and it doesent do what it should do.. and mount it and but group and owner right names not numbers..
This is not a bug but limitation. Right now, cifs can't translate the uids and gids to user names and group names respectively if there is no mapping in /etc/passwd and /etc/group respectively.
Do you have a /etc/nsswitch.conf file and if so, what entries do you have for passwd and group in that file? Is there a username in /etc/passwd for uid 1004 or a groupname for gid 1005 in /etc/group?
This is not a bug, it is lack of availibility of mapping uids and gids. If you think otherwise, please comment. Otherwise plan on closing this bug in a month's time.
Agreed. Not a bug, but just how this works since we don't have any way to map uid's and gid's on the server to those on the client.
FWIW, this is very similar to how NFSv2/3 work when uid's and gid's are mismatched between client and server. In this situation you may want to consider mounting with -o noperm to disable client-side permission checking and leave permissions up to the server.
Since everyone agrees, it's not a bug, can someone mark it as invalid (resolved)?
Done! Sorry for the delay!