samba - Aug 2018 - Renaming a folder while other smbd-users have files opened

A rather basic issue, but very important -> the following happened to me 
today:


samba-4.8.3 on a debian stretch machine, AD-domain-member

share:

[daten]
	comment = Daten
	create mask = 0775
	directory mask = 02775
	force directory mode = 0775
	path = /mnt/samba/
	read only = No
	veto oplock files = /*.DAT/*.dat/

situation:

More than 10 users have files open in there, doing their work mostly 
inside the subfolder \\server\daten\Daten (yes, ugly path ... anyway)

"user11" incidentally clicks "rename" on that folder
"Daten", deletes
the whole name in the process, doesn't *remember* that it was
"Daten"
and types "Klienten" (german for "clients", doesn't
matter here, just to
be precise), hits OK or Save or whatever.

Unfortunately that *works* while hundreds of files are opened by others, 
resulting in dozens of processes hanging ... and leads to an urgency 
call to yours truly.

(I killed all the samba-processes, stopped them, moved the files back 
and restarted ... )

question:

why does that work? why isn't that blocked/forbidden/not allowed?
Do we miss something, could it be regulated better by setting ACLs or so?

For sure I plan to upgrade to 4.8.5 asap, but I assume that the above 
topic is not a bug-related-behavior.

Stefan

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:37:51PM +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba
wrote:
>why does that work? why isn't that blocked/forbidden/not allowed?
because you didn't know of the "strict rename" parameter which
defaults to false
for reasons explained in the manpage. :)

-slow

-- 
Ralph Boehme, Samba Team       https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH   https://sernet.de/en/samba/
GPG Key Fingerprint:           FAE2 C608 8A24 2520 51C5
                               59E4 AA1E 9B71 2639 9E46

Am 28.08.18 um 18:16 schrieb Ralph Böhme:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:37:51PM +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger via samba 
> wrote:
>> why does that work? why isn't that blocked/forbidden/not allowed?
> 
> because you didn't know of the "strict rename" parameter
which defaults
> to false for reasons explained in the manpage. :)
thanks for the pointer, read the section right now and it sounds valid 
... although I still wonder if I can avoid having users do that by 
setting ACLs?

Is it possible to allow them read/write "Daten/client[abc]" but not 
rename "Daten", for example?

It happened for the first time since over 16 yrs or so, to be fair ;-)