June 18, 20197 yr I have two users set up in unRaid, let's call them "he" and "she" There is a share called "common" with access set in unRaid as Read/Write to both "he" and "she" users. There is a folder on that share that "he" can open and write to, but "she" cannot. When I check via terminal the underlying permissions they are set to: drwxrwx--- 1 he 2000 0 Jun 18 18:38 Folder/ What is stranger, there are other folders in the same share with totally different permissions: drwxrws--- 1 he 2000 100 Oct 7 2017 Folder2/ drwxr-xr-x 1 he 2000 4096 Apr 17 08:53 Folder3/ drwxrwxrwx 1 he users 8192 Jun 12 13:24 Folder4/ Why are the permissions so vastly different? It appears "she" can access only these folders, which have a group set to "users" instead of 2000. How do I safely repair the permissions? Do i simply use chmod, or is there some setting in the GUI? Edited June 18, 20197 yr by woocash
June 18, 20197 yr Author 8 minutes ago, itimpi said: What protocol is the share set to use? All my shares use only SMB. Just found out, I can use the "Docker Safe New Permissions", running it now, will report the results. Still the question remains, why so vast differences in the state of folder permissions in the first place. EDIT: Permissions in old folders and files seem to be fixed, but any newly created folder gains again different settings, is that how it's supposed to be? Does not make any sense to me drwxrwxrwx 1 he users 0 Jun 18 19:58 New\ folder/ drwxrwsrwx 1 nobody users 226 Feb 11 12:54 Old\ Folder/ Edited June 18, 20197 yr by woocash
June 18, 20197 yr Community Expert 5 minutes ago, woocash said: All my shares use only SMB. Just found out, I can use the "Docker Safe New Permissions", running it now, will report the results. Still the question remains, why so vast differences in the state of folder permissions in the first place. I am very confused as with SMB I cannot see how the group could end up as 2000. Something must be setting that somewhere.
June 18, 20197 yr Community Expert 59 minutes ago, woocash said: All my shares use only SMB. Just found out, I can use the "Docker Safe New Permissions", running it now, will report the results. Still the question remains, why so vast differences in the state of folder permissions in the first place. EDIT: Permissions in old folders and files seem to be fixed, but any newly created folder gains again different settings, is that how it's supposed to be? Does not make any sense to me drwxrwxrwx 1 he users 0 Jun 18 19:58 New\ folder/ drwxrwsrwx 1 nobody users 226 Feb 11 12:54 Old\ Folder/ Those look correct! nobody/users is what the New Permissions script sets.
June 21, 20197 yr Author On 6/18/2019 at 8:56 PM, itimpi said: Those look correct! nobody/users is what the New Permissions script sets. OK, so if that does that, then is it normal that afterwards the files get permissions depending on the username that put them there instead of nobody?
June 21, 20197 yr Community Expert 2 hours ago, woocash said: OK, so if that does that, then is it normal that afterwards the files get permissions depending on the username that put them there instead of nobody? As far as I know that is correct. The actual permissions shown in your example do not restrict access to a specific user anyway so in that sense the username would not be relevant. You did not, however, give an example of what the permissions were on the files rather than the folders.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.