From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Mon Sep 18 08:02:21 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E74CE26D06
 for <freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:02:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it)
Received: from smtp206.alice.it (smtp206.alice.it [82.57.200.102])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C521D84070
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:02:20 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from ml@netfence.it)
Received: from soth.ventu (79.25.179.2) by smtp206.alice.it (8.6.060.28)
 (authenticated as acanedi@alice.it)
 id 59A66B6F02FF35DD for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:02:09 +0200
Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18])
 by soth.ventu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v8I829Rk043006
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:02:09 +0200 (CEST)
 (envelope-from ml@netfence.it)
X-Authentication-Warning: soth.ventu: Host alamar.local.netfence.it
 [10.1.2.18] claimed to be alamar.ventu
Subject: Re: Future of SAMBA on FreeBSD
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
References: <e1c72d2dea66d367956e62edf7bec052.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca>
 <CA+tpaK1UEtvyeRYSSLaOPoHb=Nmy4omDiyCvSdDtw-iKvsRYyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6ba7e46e75e497460793205e261851a.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca>
 <CA+tpaK2B-50-DSP0RNUGkzMZKoqBBMj08dHCWEs2sSQXQ_d-_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <411eb82456c15c41763909673a63208b.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca>
 <CA+tpaK2GCNGZ6NrFOmPA0UP6hLjPOtVp9awL2ATvnL00O8twsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it>
Message-ID: <485a5756-ca36-bba6-62c8-c76022b05452@netfence.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:02:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+tpaK2GCNGZ6NrFOmPA0UP6hLjPOtVp9awL2ATvnL00O8twsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:02:21 -0000

On 09/17/17 23:18, Adam Vande More wrote:

> What?  It doesn't seem like you have a good enough understanding to make a
> claim like that.  It is quite clear that bug is relavant only to jailed
> instances of samba, and VFS related perms.  Your current was already
> explained to you once, and you've been reminded of it.

Sorry to step in like this, but I find the original question quite 
interesting.
Since we are using jailed Samba 4.4 instances, I'd be very worried if 
this setup would lose support in the future.

Is there any plan to allow Samba to properly work in a jail?

  bye & Thanks
	av.