Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Ok, so I caused my own problem by trying to be funny. And now I am very confused about how to fix it.

So here we go: Our server has had 2 open shares since day one. only one of them offered windows users write permissions, and the other worked fine for mac or *nix boxes. Both files looked as follows.

/etc/samba/smb.conf

[HomeShare]
    path = /home/
    browseable = yes
    read only = no
    guest ok = no
    force create mode = 0775
    force directory mode = 0775
    valid users = @users

This has worked fine for years, and allows our users to connect with their windows desktops and have read\write permissions all fine.

/var/lib/samba/usershare/home

#version
path=/home
comment=
usershare_acl=S-1-1-0:R
guest_ok=n

This, we don't really know why was setup, never needed or used. But took forever to finally trace down and remove several months ago.

So to get to the point I thought it would be funny to comment out the share definition in the smb.conf

#i just blocked out the lines. So that the information wouldn't be lost, just not read after restarting samba.

then recreated the share file in /var/lib/samba/usershare/home except changed the name to HomeShare, a quick $sudo service smbd restart later and voila suddenly the network share claims to be readonly.

My problem is that after removing the file from samba/usershare/ and un-commenting the original [HomeShare] definition, neither restarting samba, or a full system reboot allows write access again. I changed the share name to [HomeShares] and everything works perfectly again. So my guess is there is some cached record someplace of the name with the wrong permissions.

Any help or suggested directions to clear this error would be most useful.

share|improve this question
    
OP never seen again... –  guntbert Mar 12 at 15:58
add comment

closed as off-topic by guntbert, karel, Seth Mar 14 at 21:26

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This describes a problem that can't be reproduced that seemingly went away on its own or was only relevant to a very specific period of time. It's off-topic as it's unlikely to help future readers." – guntbert, karel, Seth
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.