Submitted 11 months ago by basic_user@lemmy.world to selfhosted@lemmy.world
Hi, I made this pose a few days ago: lemmy.world/post/27391713 And I’ve been trying a lot of stuff and it doesn’t work and it’s driving me nuts. Now I tried again from the bottom and wrote down everything. You can see my notes here: docs.google.com/document/d/…/edit?usp=sharing Can anyone tell me why I keep banging my head against a wall here? Thanks :)
Does the docker user have permission to that folder?
How do I tell? In the docker-compose.yml file I put the user and password for my server user. I thought that was going to make it work?
In case you haven’t realized, the user and pass in the docker compose are for setting the user/pass that you will enter on windows to access the share. It doesn’t have to be the same as the Linux server user account - though mine is the same because it’s easier to remember.
I would suggest adding “UID” and “GID” environment variables to the container, and set them to the numeric values for user and group numbers that show in place of your name when you use “ls -an” inside of the “mount” folder (they will probably be the same number). I get the same error as you when I copy your docker-compose and try to access a folder owned by my user. When I add the UID and GID of my user id to the docker-compose (1007 for me), the error goes away.
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried and it still doesn’t work. I updated the google docs notes with my steps if you want to see what I did.
Hmm, well it doesn’t seem to be any problem with the docker compose then as best as I can tell. I picked a random ext4 flash drive and replicated your setup with the UID and GID set and it seems to work fine:
# /etc/fstab /dev/sda1 /home/<me>/mount/ext_hdd_01 ext4 defaults 0 2
~/mount % ls -an total 12 drwxr-xr-x 3 1000 1000 4096 Mar 27 16:22 . drwx------ 86 1000 1000 4096 Mar 27 16:31 .. drwxrwxrwx 3 0 0 4096 Mar 27 16:26 ext_hdd_01 ~/mount/ext_hdd_01 % ls -an total 6521728 drwxrwxrwx 3 0 0 4096 Mar 27 16:26 . drwxr-xr-x 3 1000 1000 4096 Mar 27 16:22 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 1000 1000 6678214224 May 5 2024 PXL_20240504_233345242.mp4 drwxrwxrwx 2 0 0 16384 May 5 2024 lost+found -rwxr--r-- 1 1000 1000 5 Mar 27 16:27 test.txt
# ~/samba/docker-compose.yml services: samba: image: dockurr/samba container_name: samba environment: NAME: "Data" USER: "user" PASS: "pass" UID: "1000" GID: "1000" ports: - 445:445 volumes: - /home/<me>/mount:/storage restart: always
I was able to play the PXL.mp4 video from my desktop and write back the test.txt file
OK let’s run through some debug steps.
Test to see if samba is working by using a docker volume instead of trying to mount a file path.
If that works we can then assume its purely a file permission issue. U can check/test that by opening a shell inside the docker container and doing investigation from their.
If from the container shell u have perm issues then u will probably need to use the docker parameter to specify the user id of the container to match that of ur host or alternativly set the filesystem to match that of the container (this will lock u out of ur servers user access to the filesystem as u will no longer be owner).
If the container shell has perms to do shit in the mounted volume then it’s a samba config issue. I’ve never done it myself but I’ve heard that samba is a bitch to configure.
Try the users suggestion from the other post and run “ls -an” to see the numeric user IDs rather than the names you’re assigning. I’ve recently been building a new server with proxmox and learned this same lesson already as user “1000” gets assigned as user “100000” inside containers there to prevent it from having host permissions automatically from my understanding.
Do I need to enter the container bash and change something then? I tried adding UID and GID to the docker compose file, but it still fails. I updated the google docs notes if you want to see my steps.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
Don’t do this
Samba was not designed to be containerized. Install Samba native and try again. I’m almost certain the problem will go away.
irmadlad@lemmy.world 11 months ago
There are some things that shouldn’t be containerized even tho they can be. I can see the benefit of a user wanting to containerize everything…it’s one neat little package. I look at on a case by case basis. For instance, Caddy I installed on bare metal instead of a container even tho there is one for Caddy.