samba - Aug 2005 - "force groups" and file deletion on 3.0.14a

We recently upgraded our file servers from RHEL 3 running Samba 3.0.11 
to CentOS 4 running Samba 3.0.14a.  Since then, we've been getting some 
"permission denied" errors while deleting files.

Most of our shares have permissions set up similar to the following:

[database]
    valid users = @faculty randomsecretary1 randomsecretary2 @admin
    force group = faculty

Under Samba 3.0.11, users not in the primary group (such as @admin and 
randomsecretary1) were forced into the appropriate group and so had full 
permissions on the drive.  Under Samba 3.0.14a, users not in the primary 
group can create and edit files but cannot delete them.  This occurs 
with Windows XP SP 2 clients; oddly enough, smbclient can still delete 
the files.

I know that I can work around this by setting up proper groups or by 
using ACLs, but I'd prefer not to have to change my current setup.

I would appreciate assistance.  Thank you.

Josh Kelley

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Kelley wrote:
> We recently upgraded our file servers from RHEL 3 running 
> Samba 3.0.11 to CentOS 4 running Samba 3.0.14a.  Since then,
> we've been getting some "permission denied" errors while
> deleting files.
> 
> Most of our shares have permissions set up similar to the following:
> 
> [database]
>    valid users = @faculty randomsecretary1 randomsecretary2 @admin
>    force group = faculty
> 
> Under Samba 3.0.11, users not in the primary group (such 
> as @admin and randomsecretary1) were forced into the appropriate
> group and so had full permissions on the drive.  Under Samba
> 3.0.14a, users not in the primary group can create and edit
> files but cannot delete them.  This occurs with Windows XP SP
> 2 clients;  oddly enough, smbclient can still delete the files.
> 
> I know that I can work around this by setting up proper groups or by
> using ACLs, but I'd prefer not to have to change my current setup.
Josh,

WinXP sp2 introduced uses an alternative method for deleting
files and directories.  This has caused us no end of pain.
I think things are ok in the current 3.0 tree now.
Have you got time to run a quick check of the
SAMBA_3_0_RELEASE tree for me?  We're getting ready for
3.0.20.





cheers, jerry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDA0WHIR7qMdg1EfYRAg87AKCijy04hG613+x+m8aoEi2CFg69MQCdHZuz
1hgUWEvXVg5b/NcQDYHSRCo=MVtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----